Abstract
This study investigates role of defeasible reasoning and argumentation theory for decision-support in the health-care sector. The main objective is to support clinicians with a tool for taking plausible and rational medical decisions that can be better justified and explained. The basic principles of argumentation theory are described and demonstrated in a well known health scenario: the breast cancer recurrence problem. It is shown how to translate clinical evidence in the form of arguments, how to define defeat relations among them and how to create a formal argumentation framework. Acceptability semantics are then applied over this framework to compute arguments justification status. It is demonstrated how this process can enhance clinician decision-making. A well-known dataset has been used to evaluate our argument-based approach. An encouraging 74% predictive accuracy is compared against the accuracy of well-established machine-learning classifiers that performed equally or worse than our argument-based approach. This result is extremely promising because not only demonstrates how a knowledge-base paradigm can perform as well as state-of-the-art learning-based paradigms, but also because it appears to have a better explanatory capacity and a higher degree of intuitiveness that might be appealing to clinicians.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Baroni, P., Guida, G., Mussi, S.: Full non-monotonicity: a new perspective in defeasible reasoning. In: European Symposium on Intelligent Techniques, pp. 58–62 (1997)
Cestnik, G., Konenenko, I., Bratko, I.: Assistant-86: A knowledge-elicitation tool for sophisticated users. In: Progress in Machine Learning, pp. 31–45 (1987)
Chang, C.F., Ghose, A., Miller, A.: Mixed-initiative argumentation: A framework for justification management in clinical group decision support. In: AAAI (November 2009)
Clark, P., Niblett, T.: Induction in noisy domains. In: Progress in Machine Learning (from Proceedings of the 2nd European Working Session on Learning), pp. 11–30 (1987)
Craven, R., Toni, F., Cadar, C., Hadad, A., Williams, M.: Efficient argumentation for medical decision-making. In: KR (2012)
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Argumentation for aggregating clinical evidence. In: 22nd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 361–368 (2010)
Longo, L., Kane, B., Hederman, L.: Argumentation theory in health care. In: 25th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (2012)
Matt, P., Morgem, M., Toni, F.: Combining statistics and arguments to compute trust. In: 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1 (2010)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Arguments and Computations (1), 93–124 (2010)
Toni, F.: Argumentative agents. In: Multiconference on Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 223–229 (2010)
Williams, M., Williamson, J.: Combining argumentation and bayesian nets for breast cancer prognosis. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15(1-2), 155–178 (2006)
Wu, Y., Caminada, M., Podlaszewski, M.: A labelling based justification status of arguments. Workshop on Non- Monotonic Reasoning, Studies in Logic 3(4), 12–29 (2010)
Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T., Dunne, P.: Instantiating knowledge bases in abstract argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 1 (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Longo, L., Hederman, L. (2013). Argumentation Theory for Decision Support in Health-Care: A Comparison with Machine Learning. In: Imamura, K., Usui, S., Shirao, T., Kasamatsu, T., Schwabe, L., Zhong, N. (eds) Brain and Health Informatics. BHI 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8211. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02753-1_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02753-1_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02752-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02753-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)