Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2022; 61(03/04): 111-122
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756650
Original Article

An Explainable Knowledge-Based System Using Subjective Preferences and Objective Data for Ranking Decision Alternatives

Kavya Ramisetty
1   Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani-Hyderabad Campus, Telangana, India
,
Jabez Christopher
1   Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani-Hyderabad Campus, Telangana, India
,
Subhrakanta Panda
1   Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani-Hyderabad Campus, Telangana, India
,
Baktha Singh Lazarus
2   Joyce Clinical Labs, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Julie Dayalan
3   Good Samaritan Kilpauk Lab and Allergy Testing Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations Funding Certain phases of data collection in this research were partially supported by DST-SERB start-up research grant FILE NO: SRG/2019/001801.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Allergy is a hypersensitive reaction that occurs when the allergen reacts with the immune system. The prevalence and severity of the allergies are uprising in South Asian countries. Allergy often occurs in combinations which becomes difficult for physicians to diagnose.

Objectives This work aims to develop a decision-making model which aids physicians in diagnosing allergy comorbidities. The model intends to not only provide rational decisions, but also explainable knowledge about all alternatives.

Methods The allergy data gathered from real-time sources contain a smaller number of samples for comorbidities. Decision-making model applies three sampling strategies, namely, ideal, single, and complete, to balance the data. Bayes theorem-based probabilistic approaches are used to extract knowledge from the balanced data. Preference weights for attributes with respect to alternatives are gathered from a group of domain-experts affiliated to different allergy testing centers. The weights are combined with objective knowledge to assign confidence values to alternatives. The system provides these values along with explanations to aid decision-makers in choosing an optimal decision.

Results Metrics of explainability and user satisfaction are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the system in real-time diagnosis. Fleiss' Kappa statistic is 0.48, and hence the diagnosis of experts is said to be in moderate agreement. The decision-making model provides a maximum of 10 suitable and relevant pieces of evidence to explain a decision alternative. Clinicians have improved their diagnostic performance by 3% after using CDSS (77.93%) with a decrease in 20% of time taken.

Conclusion The performance of less-experienced clinicians has improved with the support of an explainable decision-making model. The code for the framework with all intermediate results is available at https://github.com/kavya6697/Allergy-PT.git.

Keywords

decision-making - allergy diagnosis - comorbidities - explainability - immunology

Human Subjects Protection

No human/animal subjects are directly involved in this study.


Clinical Relevance Statement

The implementation of interpretable medical decision-making model which can provide support for diagnosing allergy comorbidities would aid clinicians with explainable knowledge about decision space. We developed the model based on the data gathered from real-time sources and the preferences provided by different clinicians. This helps in understanding the agreement among the clinicians in allergy diagnosis for customizing the model's knowledge accordingly.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 04 March 2022

Accepted: 06 July 2022

Article published online:
11 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Wang XY, Lim-Jurado M, Prepageran N, Tantilipikorn P, Wang Y. Treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria: a review of the newest antihistamine drug bilastine. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2016; 12: 585-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bhattacharya K, Sircar G, Dasgupta A, Gupta Bhattacharya S. Spectrum of allergens and allergen biology in India. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2018; 177 (03) 219-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blaiss MS, Hammerby E, Robinson S, Kennedy-Martin T, Buchs S. The burden of allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis on adolescents: a literature review. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2018; 121 (01) 43-52 .e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yang JM, Koh HY, Moon SY. et al. Allergic disorders and susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19: A nationwide cohort study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020; 146 (04) 790-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hagemann J, Onorato GL, Jutel M. et al. Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: an ARIA-EAACI-GA2 LEN consensus. Allergy 2021; 76 (08) 2354-2366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stephens AB, Wynn CS, Hofstetter AM. et al. Effect of electronic health record reminders for routine immunizations and immunizations needed for chronic medical conditions. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (05) 1101-1109
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Adeleye OO, Adeyemi AS, Oyem JC, Akindokun SS, Ayanlade JI. Rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among health workes in COVID-19 frontline. Eur J Pharm Med Res 2020; 7: 445-451
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Suri JS, Agarwal S, Gupta SK. et al. A narrative review on characterization of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19-infected lungs using artificial intelligence. Comput Biol Med 2021; 130: 104210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Meltzer EO, Rosario NA, Van Bever H, Lucio L. Fexofenadine: review of safety, efficacy and unmet needs in children with allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2021; 17 (01) 113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lenivtceva ID, Kopanitsa G. The pipeline for standardizing Russian unstructured allergy anamnesis using FHIR allergy intolerance resource. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (3-04): 95-103
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dubey KK, Vui CS, Htay MNN. Allergic rhinitis: diagnosis and management revisited. Asian Journal of Medical Principles and Clinical Practice 2019; 2 (03) 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shikha G, Swami H. Trends of sensitization pattern to aeroallergens among the patients with allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma in Bangalore: a cross sectional study. Med J Armed Forces India 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.11.017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hutagaol AB, Adriztina I. The differences in the quality of life of allergic rhinitis and non-symptomatic individuals. Oto Rhino Laryngologica Indonesiana 2022; 51 (02) 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Issakhov A, Mardieyeva A, Zhandaulet Y, Abylkassymova A. Numerical study of air flow in the human respiratory system with rhinitis. Case Stud Therm Eng 2021; 26: 101079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Storino V, Muñoz-Ortiz J, Villabona-Martinez V, Villamizar-Sanjuán JD, Rojas-Carabali W, de-la-Torre A. An unusual case of multiple food allergies comorbid with multiple chemical sensitivity: a case report. J Asthma Allergy 2021; 14: 317-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aziz A, Asif M, Ashraf G, Yang Q, Wang S. COVID-19 impacts, diagnosis and possible therapeutic techniques: a comprehensive review. Curr Pharm Des 2021; 27 (09) 1170-1184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tamm S, Lensmar C, Andreasson A. et al. Objective and subjective sleep in rheumatoid arthritis and severe seasonal allergy: preliminary assessments of the role of sickness, central and peripheral inflammation. Nat Sci Sleep 2021; 13: 775-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gupta N, Agarwal P, Sachdev A, Gupta D. Allergy testing - an overview. Indian Pediatr 2019; 56 (11) 951-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tarumi S, Takeuchi W, Chalkidis G. et al. Leveraging artificial intelligence to improve chronic disease care: methods and application to pharmacotherapy decision support for type-2 diabetes mellitus. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (S 01): e32-e43
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Suzuki M, Shibahara T, Muragaki Y. A method to extract feature variables contributed in nonlinear machine learning prediction. Methods Inf Med 2020; 59 (01) 1-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kavya R, Christopher J. Interpretable systems based on evidential prospect theory for decision-making. Appl Intell 2022; 1-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Puccinelli-Ortega N, Cromo M, Foley KL. et al. Facilitators and barriers to implementing a digital informed decision making tool in primary care: a qualitative study. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 1-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ji M, Chen X, Genchev GZ, Wei M, Yu G. Status of AI-enabled clinical decision support systems implementations in China. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (5-06): 123-132
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tokdar ST, Kass RE. Importance sampling: a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2010; 2: 54-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res 2002; 16: 321-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 He H, Bai Y, Garcia EA, Li S. ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. Paper presented at: 2008 IEEE international joint conference on neural networks (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence); 2008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Herrmann C, Rauch G. Smoothing corrections for improving sample size recalculation rules in adaptive group sequential study designs. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (1-02): 1-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wu DTY, Barrick L, Ozkaynak M, Blondon K, Zheng K. Principles for designing and developing a workflow monitoring tool to enable and enhance clinical workflow automation. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 132-138
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nanji KC, Garabedian PM, Shaikh SD. et al. Development of a perioperative medication-related clinical decision support tool to prevent medication errors: an analysis of user feedback. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (05) 984-995
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res 2017; 8 (04) 187-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Otto AK, Dyer AA, Warren CM, Walkner M, Smith BM, Gupta RS. The development of a clinical decision support system for the management of pediatric food allergy. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2017; 56 (06) 571-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Légat L, Van Laere S, Nyssen M, Steurbaut S, Dupont AG, Cornu P. Clinical decision support systems for drug allergy checking: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (09) e258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Effing TW, Vercoulen JH, Bourbeau J. et al. Definition of a COPD self-management intervention: International Expert Group consensus. Eur Respir J 2016; 48 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kavya R, Christopher J, Panda S, Lazarus YB. Machine learning and XAI approaches for allergy diagnosis. Biomed Signal Process Control 2021; 69: 102681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Denecke K, Abd-Alrazaq A, Househ M, Warren J. Evaluation metrics for health chatbots: a Delphi study. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60 (5-06): 171-179
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hoffman RR, Mueller ST, Klein G, Litman J. Metrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04608. 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar