Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Using model checking for critiquing based on clinical guidelines

  • Perry Groot*
  • , Arjen Hommersom
  • , Peter J.F. Lucas
  • , Robbert Jan Merk
  • , Annette ten Teije
  • , Frank van Harmelen
  • , Radu Serban
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: Medical critiquing systems compare clinical actions performed by a physician with a predefined set of actions. In order to provide useful feedback, an important task is to find differences between the actual actions and a set of 'ideal' actions as described by a clinical guideline. In case differences exist, the critiquing system provides insight into the extent to which they are compatible. Methods and material: We propose a computational method for such critiquing, where the ideal actions are given by a formal model of a clinical guideline, and where the actual actions are derived from real world patient data. We employ model checking to investigate whether a part of the actual treatment is consistent with the guideline. Results: We show how critiquing can be cast in terms of temporal logic, and what can be achieved by using model checking. Furthermore, a method is introduced for off-line computing relevant information which can be exploited during critiquing. The method has been applied to a clinical guideline of breast cancer in conjunction with breast cancer patient data.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-36
Number of pages18
JournalArtificial intelligence in medicine
Volume46
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2009
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • n/a OA procedure
  • Clinical guidelines
  • Critiquing
  • Formal methods
  • Model checking
  • Breast cancer

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Using model checking for critiquing based on clinical guidelines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this