Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2011; 50(06): 525-535
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-06-0004
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

50 Years of Informatics Research on Decision Support: What’s Next

J. A. Mitchell
1   The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
,
U. Gerdin
2   National Board of Health and Welfare, Regulations and Licenses, Terminology, Classifications and Informatics, Stockholm, Sweden
,
D. A. B. Lindberg
3   National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA
,
C. Lovis
4   University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
,
F. J. Martin-Sanchez
5   The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
R. A. Miller
6   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
,
E. H. Shortliffe
7   The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, TX, USA
,
T.-Y. Leong
8   National University of Singapore, Singapore
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: To reflect on the history, status, and future trends of decision support in health and biomedical informatics. To highlight the new challenges posed by the complexity and diversity of genomic and clinical domains. To examine the emerging paradigms for supporting cost-effective, personalized decision making.

Methods: A group of international experts in health and biomedical informatics presented their views and discussed the challenges and issues on decision support at the Methods of Information in Medicine 50th anniversary symposium. The experts were invited to write short articles summarizing their thoughts and positions after the symposium.

Results and Conclusions: The challenges posed by the complexity and diversity of the domain knowledge, system infrastructure, and usage pattern are highlighted. New requirements and computational paradigms for representing, using, and acquiring biomedical knowledge and healthcare protocols are proposed. The underlying common themes identified for developing next-generation decision support include incorporating lessons from history, uniform vocabularies, integrative interfaces, contextualized decisions, personalized recommendations, and adaptive solutions.

Keywords

Decision support - standard vocabularies - information retrieval - genomic and clinical information - integrative system - knowledge representation - personalized medicine - education
 

  • References

  • 1 Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis; symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science 1959; 130 3366 9 – 21. Epub 1959/07/03.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Warner HR, Toronto AF, Veasy LG. Experience with Bayes’ Theorem for Computer Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1964; 115: 558 –567. Epub 1964/07/31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gorry GA, Barnett GO. Sequential diagnosis by computer. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 1968; 205 (Suppl. 12) 849-854. Epub 1968/09/16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. British medical journal 1972; 2 5804 9 –13. Epub 1972/04/01.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shortliffe EH. The adolescence of AI in medicine: will the field come of age in the ’90s?. Artificial intelligence in medicine 1993; 5 (Suppl. 02) 93 –106. Epub 1993/04/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Miller RA. Medical diagnostic decision support systems – past, present, and future: a threaded bibliography and brief commentary. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 1994; 1 (Suppl. 01) 8 – 27. Epub 1994/01/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Patel VL, Shortliffe EH, Stefanelli M, Szolovits P, Berthold MR, Bellazzi R. et al. The coming of age of artificial intelligence in medicine. Artificial intelligence in medicine 2009; 46 (Suppl. 01) 5 –17. Epub 2008/09/16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Miller RA, Masarie Jr FE. The demise of the “Greek Oracle” model for medical diagnostic systems. Methods Inf Med 1990; 29 (Suppl. 01) 1-2. Epub 1990/01/01.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hripcsak G, Ludemann P, Pryor TA, Wigertz OB, Clayton PD. Rationale for the Arden Syntax. Computers and biomedical research, an international journal 1994; 27 (Suppl. 04) 291-324. Epub 1994/08/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Miller RA, Gardner RM. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. American Medical Informatics Association, Computer-based Patient Record Institute, Medical Library Association, Association of Academic Health Science Libraries, American Health Information Management Association, American Nurses Association. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 1997; 4 (Suppl. 06) 442-457. Epub 1997/12/10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Barnett GO, Cimino JJ, Hupp JA, Hoffer EP. DXplain. An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 1987; 258 (Suppl. 01) 67-74. Epub 1987/07/03.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Miller RA, Pople Jr HE, Myers JD. Internist-1, an experimental computer-based diagnostic consultant for general internal medicine. The New England journal of medicine 1982; 307 (Suppl. 08) 468-476. Epub 1982/08/19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Osheroff JA PE, Teich JM, Sittig DF, Jenders RA. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: An Implementer’s Guide. HIMSS: Productivity Press; 2005. p 136.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Newman-Toker DE, Pronovost PJ. Diagnostic errors – the next frontier for patient safety. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2009; 301 (10) 1060-1062. Epub 2009/03/13.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Carey S. The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological review 1996; 103 (Suppl. 04) 650-669. Epub 1996/10/01.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Singh H, Petersen LA, Thomas EJ. Understanding diagnostic errors in medicine: a lesson from aviation. Quality & safety in health care 2006; 15 (Suppl. 03) 159-164. Epub 2006/06/06.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Warner JL, Najarian RM, Tierney Jr LM. Perspective: Uses and misuses of thresholds in diagnostic decision making. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2010; 85 (Suppl. 03) 556-563. Epub 2010/02/26.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kannampallil TG, Schauer GF, Cohen T, Patel VL. Considering complexity in healthcare systems. Journal of biomedical informatics 2011 Epub 2011/07/19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Edmonds B. What is Complexity? – The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. Brussels, Belgium: Centre for Policy Modelling; 1999. Report No. 07.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Lyons M. Knowledge and the modelling of complex systems. Futures [Internet] 2005; 37 (Suppl. 03) 711-719. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001632870400179X
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kawamoto K, Lobach DF, Willard HF, Ginsburg GS. A national clinical decision support infrastructure to enable the widespread and consistent practice of genomic and personalized medicine. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2009; 9: 17. Epub 2009/03/25.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 West M, Ginsburg GS, Huang AT, Nevins JR. Embracing the complexity of genomic data for personalized medicine. Genome research 2006; 16 (Suppl. 05) 559-566. Epub 2006/05/03.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sittig DF, Wright A, Osheroff JA, Middleton B, Teich JM, Ash JS. et al. Grand challenges in clinical decision support. Journal of biomedical informatics 2008; 41 (Suppl. 02) 387-392. Epub 2007/11/22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Deshmukh VG, Hoffman MA, Arnoldi C, Bray BE, Mitchell JA. Efficiency of CYP2C9 genetic test representation for automated pharmacogenetic decision support. Methods of information in medicine 2009; 48 (Suppl. 03) 282 – 290. Epub 2009/04/24.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Roco M BW. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: NSF/DOC-sponsored report 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Hoffman MA. The genome-enabled electronic medical record. Journal of biomedical informatics 2007; 40 (Suppl. 01) 44 – 46. Epub 2006/04/18.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mitchell JA. The impact of genomics on E-health. Studies in health technology and informatics 2004; 106: 63 –74. Epub 2005/04/28.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moore B, Hu H, Singleton M, Reese MG, De La Vega FM, Yandell M. Global analysis of disease-related DNA sequence variation in 10 healthy individuals: implications for whole genome-based clinical diagnostics. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 2011; 13 (Suppl. 03) 210 – 217. Epub 2011/02/18.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, Chen R, Klein TE, Dewey FE. et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet 2010; 375 9725 1525 –1535. Epub 2010/05/04.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ullman-Cullere MH, Mathew JP. Emerging landscape of genomics in the Electronic Health Record for personalized medicine. Human mutation 2011; 32 (Suppl. 05) 512 – 516. Epub 2011/02/11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Pang AW, MacDonald JR, Pinto D, Wei J, Rafiq MA, Conrad DF. et al. Towards a comprehensive structural variation map of an individual human genome. Genome biology 2010; 11 (Suppl. 05) R52. Epub 2010/05/21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Reese MG, Moore B, Batchelor C, Salas F, Cunningham F, Marth GT. et al. A standard variation file format for human genome sequences. Genome biology 2010; 11 (Suppl. 08) R88. Epub 2010/08/28.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lee SH, Wood GM, Jung CY, Bray BE, Mitchell JA, Eilbeck K. Structuring genomic variant data for the electronic health record. PLoS One, Under Review. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mitchell DR, Mitchell JA. Status of clinical gene sequencing data reporting and associated risks for information loss. Journal of biomedical informatics 2007; 40 (Suppl. 01) 47 – 54. Epub 2006/04/18.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Crockett DK, Ridge PK, Wilson AR, Lyon E, Williams MS, Narus SP, Facelli JC, Mitchell JA. Consensus: a framework for evaluation of uncertain gene variants in laboratory test reporting. Genome Medicine, Under Review. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Del Fiol G, Williams MS, Maram N, Rocha RA, Wood GM, Mitchell JA. Integrating genetic information resources with an EHR. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings /AMIA Symposium AMIA Symposium 2006 p 904. Epub 2007/01/24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Beaudoin DE, Longo N, Logan RA, Jones JP, Mitchell JA. Using information prescriptions to refer patients with metabolic conditions to the Genetics Home Reference website. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 2011; 99 (Suppl. 01) 70 –76. Epub 2011/01/19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 ISO Concept Database.. Available from: https://cdb.iso.org/cdb/search.action
    PubMed
  • 40 International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation..
    PubMed
  • 41 epSOS – European Patients Smart Open Services.. Available from: http://www.epsos.eu
    PubMed
  • 42 The World Health Organization.. Available from: http://www.who.int/en
    PubMed
  • 43 Health Level Seven International, The International Health Terminology Standard.. Available from: http://www.hl7.org
    PubMed