At 08:06 AM 9/12/2007, Kavitha Srinivas wrote: >1. Yes, as Chintan said, in the case where you had explicit >negations in the data (e.g., the lab data rules out the presence of a >certain infectious agent), you clearly want to use open world >reasoning. However, if someone is not explicitly asserted to be on >some prescription drug, it is fair to assume that they are not taking >the drug (closed world assumption). Actually, it is dangerous to assume anything if a patient is not explicitly asserted to be taking any particular drug--omissions on drug histories happen all the time... Likewise, making any generalized statements about when open- and closed-world reasoning are appropriate in health care is dangerous--one must be very specific about the context and specific case to assess whether the assumption is valid. __ Daniel Rubin, MD, MS Clinical Asst. Professor, Radiology Research Scientist, Stanford Medical Informatics Scientific Director, National Center of Biomedical Ontology MSOB X-215 Stanford, CA 94305 650-725-5693Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:54:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:42 GMT