Subscribe to RSS
Please copy the URL and add it into your RSS Feed Reader.
https://www.thieme-connect.de/rss/thieme/en/10.1055-s-00035037.xml
Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1994; 33(02): 205-213
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635005
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635005
Original Article
Case-Based Explanation for Medical Diagnostic Programs, with an Example from Gynaecology
We are grateful to Tony Hoare for providing valuable suggestions and advice. We would like to thank the Consultants in the Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Rad-cliffe Hospital, Oxford, for permission to collect and use clinical data from patients under their care. Richard Stamper is supported by a SERC Research grant (SERC GR/F47077). Bryan Todd is supported by a SERC Advanced Fellowship in Information Technology (SERC B/ITF/269).
Further Information
Publication History
Publication Date:
08 February 2018 (online)
Abstract:
One of the most accountable methods of providing machine assistance in medical diagnosis is to retrieve and display similar previously diagnosed cases from a database. In practice, however, classifying cases according to the diagnoses of their nearest neighbours is often significantly less accurate than other statistical classifiers. In this paper the transparency of the nearest neighbours method is combined with the accuracy of another statistical method. This is achieved by using the other statistical method to define a measure of similarity between the presentations of two cases. The diagnosis of abdominal pain of suspected gynaecological origin is used as a case study to evaluate this method. Bayes’ theorem, with the usual assumption of conditional independence, is used to define a metric on cases. This new metric was found to correspond as well as Hamming distance to the clinical notion of “similarity” between cases, while significantly increasing accuracy to that of the Bayes’ method itself.
-
REFERENCES
- 1 Seroussi B, The ARC. AURC Cooperative Group. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain when taking into account interactions. Meth Inform Med 1986; 25: 194-8.
- 2 Sutton GC. How accurate is computer-aided diagnosis?. Lancet 1989; ii: 905-8.
- 3 Gunn AA. The acute abdomen: the role of computer-assisted diagnosis. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1991; 05: 639-65.
- 4 De Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, McCann AP, Horrocks JC. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. BMJ 1972; ii: 9-13.
- 5 Adams ID, Chan M, Clifford PC. et al. Computer-aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain: a multicentre study. BMJ 1986; 293: 80O-4.
- 6 Lachenbruch PA, Mickey MR. Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Tech-nomet 1968; 10: 1-11.
- 7 Glick N. Additive estimators for probabilities of correct classification. Pattern Recogn 1978; 10: 211-22.
- 8 Macartney FJ. Diagnostic logic. BMJ 1987; 295: 1325-31.
- 9 Teach R, Shqrtliffe E. An analysis of physician attitudes regarding computer-based clinical consultation systems. Comput Biomed Res 1981; 14: 542-58.
- 10 Young D, Chapman T, Poile C. Physician, reveal thyself. Br J Healthcare Comput 1990; 07: 16-21.
- 11 Weyl S, Fries J, Wiederhold G, Germano F. A modular selfdescribing clinical database system. Comput Biomed Res 1975; 08: 279-93.
- 12 Fries JF, McShane DJ. ARAMIS (The American Rheumatism Association Medical Information System) - a prototypical national chronic-disease data bank. West J Med 1986; 145: 798-804.
- 13 Cover TM, Hart PE. Nearest neighbour pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 1967; 13: 21-7.
- 14 Stanfill C, Waltz D. Toward memory-based reasoning. Comm ACM 1986; 29: 1213-28.
- 15 Singer J, Sacks HS, Lucente F, Chalmers TC. Physician attitudes toward applications of computer data base systems. JAMA 1983; 249: 1610-4.
- 16 Loftsgaarden DO, Quesenberry CP. A non-parametric estimate of a multivariate density function. Ann Math Statist 1965; 36: 1049-51.
- 17 Stone CJ. Consistent nonparametric regression. Ann Statist 1977; 05: 596-645.
- 18 Bounds DG, Lloyd PJ, Mathew BG. A comparison of neural network and other pattern recognition approaches to the di-agnosis of low back pain. Neural Networks 1990; 03: 583-91.
- 19 Sutton GC. Computer-aided diagnosis: a review. Br J Surg 1989; 76: 82-5.
- 20 Séroussi B. The ARC & AURC Cooperative Group. Comparison of several discrimination methods: Application to the acute abdomen. In: Objecti e Medical Section Making: Systems Approach in Disease Workshop. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics; 1985. 28: 12-18.
- 21 Croft DJ. Is computerized diagnosis possible?. Comput Biomed Res 1972; 05: 351-67.
- 22 Fukunaga K. Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. (2nd ed).. Boston: Academic Press; 1990
- 23 Fenyo G. Computer-aided diagnosis and decision-making in acute abdominal pain. Dig Dis 1990; 08: 639-65.
- 24 Fox J, Barber D, Bardhan KD. A quantitative comparison with rule-based diagnostic inference. Meth Inform Med 1980; 19: 210-5.
- 25 Titterington DM, Murray GD, Murray LS. et al. Comparison of discrimination tech-ni-ques applied to a complex data set of head-injured patients. J Roy Statist Soc Ser A 1981; 144: 145-75.
- 26 Ludwig D, Heilbronn D. The design and testing of a new approach to computer aided differential diagnosis. Meth Inf Med 1983; 22: 156-66.
- 27 Kononenko I. Comparison of inductive and naive bayesian learning approaches to automatic knowledge acquisition. In: Fox J, Fieschi M, Engelbrecht R. eds. AIME 87. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics; 1987. 33 190-7.
- 28 Spiegelhalter DJ, Knill-Jones RP. Statistical and knowledge-based approaches to clinical decision-support systems, with an application in gastroenterology. J Roy Statist Soc Ser A 1984; 147: 35-77.
- 29 Seymour DG, Green M, Vaz FG. Making better decisions: Construction of clinical scoring systems by the Spiegelhalter-Knill-Jo-nes approach. BMJ 1990; 300: 223-6.
- 30 Reggia JA, Perricone BT. Answer justification in medical decision support systems based on bayesian classification. Comput Biol Med 1985; 15: 161-7.
- 31 De Dombal FT. Clinical decision making and the computer: Consultant, expert, or just another test?. Br J Healthcare Comput 1984; 01: 7-14.
- 32 Quinlan JR. Discovering rules by induction from large collections of examples. In: Michie D. eds Expert Systems in the Microelectronic Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1979
- 33 Cestnik B, Kononenko I, Bratko I. ASSISTANT 86: A knowledge elicitation tool for sophisticated users. In: Bratko I, Lavrac N. eds. Progress in Machine Learning: Proceedings of EWSL 87: 2nd European Working Session on Learning. Wilmslow: Sigma; 1987: 31-15.
- 34 Gammerman A, Thatcher AR. Bayesian diagnostic probabilities without assuming independence of symptoms. Meth Inform Med 1991; 30: 15-22.
- 35 Pirnat V, Kononenko I, Jane T, Bratko I. Medical estimation of automatically induced decision rules. In: Hunter J, Cookson J, Wyatt J. eds. AIME 89: Second European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics; 1989. 38 24-36.