Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation

Tolchinsky, Pancho; Cortés, Ulises; Modgil, Sanjay; Caballero, Francisco; López-Navidad, A

doi:10.1109/mis.2006.116

Cited by 42 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Medical informatics and bioinformatics research does not address the reasoning aspects inherent in the analysis of evidence of primary nature, especially from clinical trials. Previous interesting work ( [4,5] and others) exists that uses argumentation as a tool in medical decision support, but as such, assumes the existence of a hand-crafted set of facts around treatment efficacy. Work that is concerned with the capture of a wide spectrum of data about clinical trials exists, [6], and would potentially provide a useful basis for the continuation of our work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

Gorogiannis

Hunter

Patkar

et al. 2010

Knowledge Representation for Health-Care. Data, Processes and Guidelines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The volume and complexity of knowledge produced by medical research calls for the development of technology for automated management and analysis of such knowledge. In this paper, we identify scenarios where a researcher or a clinician may wish to use automated systems for analysing knowledge from clinical trials. For this, we propose a language for encoding, capturing and synthesising knowledge from clinical trials and a framework that allows the construction of arguments from such knowledge. We develop this framework and demonstrate its use on a case study regarding chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

Gorogiannis

Hunter

Patkar

et al. 2010

Knowledge Representation for Health-Care. Data, Processes and Guidelines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The framework allows doctors to express their arguments about the viability of an organ and employs argumentation techniques, namely argumentation schemes and critical questions, to combine arguments, to identify inconsistencies and to propose a valid solution considering their relative strength and the available evidence about the organ and the donor. The key difference between [33], [26], [11] and the works [14], [38] is the variability of the monological structure of arguments. In the former works, arguments are hand-crafted and ad-hoc construct built by relying on domain specific expertise and therefore they have a variable monological structure.…”

Section: Argument-based Applications In the Medical And Health Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defeasible Reasoning and Argument-Based Systems in Medical Fields: An Informal Overview

Longo¹,

Dondio²

2014

2014 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The first aim of this article is to provide readers informally with the basic notions of defeasible and non-monotonic reasoning, logics borrowed from artificial intelligence. It then describes argumentation theory, a paradigm for implementing defeasible reasoning in practice as well as the common multilayer schema upon which argument-based models are usually built. The second aim is to describe the selection of argumentbased applications in the medical and health-care sectors. Finally, the paper will conclude with a summary of the features, which make defeasible reasoning and argumentation theory attractive, that emerge from the applications under review. The target reader is a medical or health-care practitioner, with limited skills in formal knowledge representation and logic, interested in enhancing evidence modelling and aggregation.

show abstract

“…In [57] we introduced the ProCLAIM model and focused on the role of a Case-Based Reasoning component. In [54] we presented a mature version of the above mentioned medical application, and in [53] we described its prototype implementation as the main large scale demonstrator system of the FP6 European project ASPIC 2 . Subsequent work focused on generalising ProCLAIM so as to be applicable to domains other than the medical.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Tolchinsky

Modgil

Atkinson

et al. 2011

Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present the argument-based model ProCLAIM, intended to provide a setting for heterogeneous agents to deliberate over safety critical actions. To achieve this purpose ProCLAIM features a Mediator Agent with three main tasks: 1) guiding the participating agents in what their valid dialectical moves are at each stage of the dialogue; 2) deciding whether submitted arguments should be accepted on the basis of their relevance; and finally, 3) evaluating the accepted arguments in order to provide an assessment of whether the proposed action should or should not be undertaken. The main focus in this paper is the proposal of a set of reasoning patters, represented in terms of argument schemes and critical questions, intended to automatise deliberations on whether a proposed action can safely be performed. Framed within the ProCLAIM model, we we aim to motivate the importance of these schemes and critical questions for: a) the Mediator Agent's guiding task that allows for a highly focused deliberation; b) the effective participation of heterogeneous agents; and c) enabling the reuse of previous similar deliberations in order to evaluate arguments on an evidential basis.

show abstract

Increasing Human-Organ Transplant Availability: Argumentation-Based Agent Deliberation

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

Argumentation about Treatment Efficacy

Defeasible Reasoning and Argument-Based Systems in Medical Fields: An Informal Overview

Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About