Untitled

Upshur, Ross; Colak, Errol

doi:10.1023/a:1026006801902

Cited by 42 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The DIAeT approach presented in this article is argument-based and similar to the practical aspect of Toulmin’s model of argumentation [ 7 ]. Toulmin’s model has gained relevance in Evidence-Based-Medicine because it is able to bring explicitness to the role of evidence in clinical reasoning [ 28 ]. It is a practical approach to argument analysis that identifies interrelated components of an argument in a given order and structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence-based medicine propagates that medical/clinical decisions are made by taking into account high-quality evidence, most notably in the form of randomized clinical trials. Evidence-based decision-making requires aggregating the evidence available in multiple trials to reach –by means of systematic reviews– a conclusive recommendation on which treatment is best suited for a given patient population. However, it is challenging to produce systematic reviews to keep up with the ever-growing number of published clinical trials. Therefore, new computational approaches are necessary to support the creation of systematic reviews that include the most up-to-date evidence.We propose a method to synthesize the evidence available in clinical trials in an ad-hoc and on-demand manner by automatically arranging such evidence in the form of a hierarchical argument that recommends a therapy as being superior to some other therapy along a number of key dimensions corresponding to the clinical endpoints of interest. The method has also been implemented as a web tool that allows users to explore the effects of excluding different points of evidence, and indicating relative preferences on the endpoints. Results Through two use cases, our method was shown to be able to generate conclusions similar to the ones of published systematic reviews. To evaluate our method implemented as a web tool, we carried out a survey and usability analysis with medical professionals. The results show that the tool was perceived as being valuable, acknowledging its potential to inform clinical decision-making and to complement the information from existing medical guidelines. Conclusions The method presented is a simple but yet effective argumentation-based method that contributes to support the synthesis of clinical trial evidence. A current limitation of the method is that it relies on a manually populated knowledge base. This problem could be alleviated by deploying natural language processing methods to extract the relevant information from publications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea that diagnostics in general or psychiatric diagnostics in particular might be some sort of modeling is not entirely new but has not yet been spelled out in detail Upshur & Colak (2003). mentioned this option briefly in regards to general medical reasoning, andMurphy (2006, pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the psychiatrist know?

Kind

2023

PhiMiSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important question in the philosophy of psychiatry is: what is the proper method of psychiatric diagnostic reasoning? Let us call this the Methodological Question. In this paper, I criticize the answer that proponents of phenomenological psychiatry have given to this question and present an alternative. I argue that their answer fails to meet several adequacy conditions for a theory of psychiatric diagnostic reasoning. I then show how my own answer to the Methodological Question – the Model-Based Account of diagnostic reasoning – meets these adequacy conditions. I conclude that the Model-Based Account of diagnostic reasoning is preferable to the Phenomenological Account.

show abstract

Building Evidence for Legal Decision Making in Real Time: Legal Triage in Public Health Emergencies

Hodge¹,

Lant

Arias

et al. 2011

Disaster med. public health prep.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTSimilar to the triaging of patients by health care workers, legal and public health professionals must prioritize and respond to issues of law and ethics in declared public health emergencies. As revealed by the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza outbreak and other events, there are considerable inconsistencies among professionals regarding how to best approach these issues during a public health emergency. Our project explores these inconsistencies by attempting to assess how practitioners make legal and ethical decisions in real-time emergencies to further critical public health objectives. Using a fictitious scenario and interactive visualization environment, we observed real-time decision-making processes among knowledgeable participants. Although participants' decisions and perspectives varied, the exercise demonstrated an increase in the perception of the relevance of legal preparedness in multiple aspects of the decision-making process and some key lessons learned for consideration in future repetitions of the exercise and actual, real-time emergency events.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S242-S251)

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 42 publications

References 28 publications

Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees

Synthesizing evidence from clinical trials with dynamic interactive argument trees

How does the psychiatrist know?

Building Evidence for Legal Decision Making in Real Time: Legal Triage in Public Health Emergencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About