RE: CAP use case - Reasoning on Weighted Condition and Fuzzy Reasoning?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
> 1.	Lack of explanation capabilities: A key feature for clinical decision
> support is that physicians like to get
>
> explanations for the recommendations proposed by the system.

Well, I'd argue that the recommendations are the accompanying literature 
that document the very measured thought process that went into setting up the model: the 
choice of variables, considerations in combinations of variables, 
outliers & statistical anomalies, etc. provide more contextual 
recommendation than a logical proof trace you would get from a purely declarative approach. The 
addition of associated probabilities with the output of the model make for 
a more responsible indicator especially for aspects of a pathway that 
are heavily dependent on a large number of variables - each in very 
specific ways.

> 2.	Lack of "knowledge visibility": The biggest downside is from the KM
> perspective, what if one of the conditions changes? We need this to be visible
> so that we can have KM processes handle these changes.

I'm not sure I follow.  The models I'm speaking of are 'driven' by patient 
data, a different patient would result in a different outcome scenario (with 
associated confidence limits and probability).  The only constants are the 
weights that are very much specific to the pathway (so ofcourse it would 
be irresponsible to swap these into different pathways that may not have 
been part of the considerations that guided the creation of the 
statistical model in the first place.

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:24:01 UTC