↓ Skip to main content

Semantics-based plausible reasoning to extend the knowledge coverage of medical knowledge bases for improved clinical decision support

Overview of attention for article published in BioData Mining, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Semantics-based plausible reasoning to extend the knowledge coverage of medical knowledge bases for improved clinical decision support
Published in
BioData Mining, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13040-017-0123-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hossein Mohammadhassanzadeh, William Van Woensel, Samina Raza Abidi, Syed Sibte Raza Abidi

Abstract

Capturing complete medical knowledge is challenging-often due to incomplete patient Electronic Health Records (EHR), but also because of valuable, tacit medical knowledge hidden away in physicians' experiences. To extend the coverage of incomplete medical knowledge-based systems beyond their deductive closure, and thus enhance their decision-support capabilities, we argue that innovative, multi-strategy reasoning approaches should be applied. In particular, plausible reasoning mechanisms apply patterns from human thought processes, such as generalization, similarity and interpolation, based on attributional, hierarchical, and relational knowledge. Plausible reasoning mechanisms include inductive reasoning, which generalizes the commonalities among the data to induce new rules, and analogical reasoning, which is guided by data similarities to infer new facts. By further leveraging rich, biomedical Semantic Web ontologies to represent medical knowledge, both known and tentative, we increase the accuracy and expressivity of plausible reasoning, and cope with issues such as data heterogeneity, inconsistency and interoperability. In this paper, we present a Semantic Web-based, multi-strategy reasoning approach, which integrates deductive and plausible reasoning and exploits Semantic Web technology to solve complex clinical decision support queries. We evaluated our system using a real-world medical dataset of patients with hepatitis, from which we randomly removed different percentages of data (5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%) to reflect scenarios with increasing amounts of incomplete medical knowledge. To increase the reliability of the results, we generated 5 independent datasets for each percentage of missing values, which resulted in 20 experimental datasets (in addition to the original dataset). The results show that plausibly inferred knowledge extends the coverage of the knowledge base by, on average, 2%, 7%, 12%, and 16% for datasets with, respectively, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% of missing values. This expansion in the KB coverage allowed solving complex disease diagnostic queries that were previously unresolvable, without losing the correctness of the answers. However, compared to deductive reasoning, data-intensive plausible reasoning mechanisms yield a significant performance overhead. We observed that plausible reasoning approaches, by generating tentative inferences and leveraging domain knowledge of experts, allow us to extend the coverage of medical knowledge bases, resulting in improved clinical decision support. Second, by leveraging OWL ontological knowledge, we are able to increase the expressivity and accuracy of plausible reasoning methods. Third, our approach is applicable to clinical decision support systems for a range of chronic diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 22 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,104,299
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BioData Mining
#96
of 308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,193
of 422,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioData Mining
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.