Mining answers for causal questions in a medical example

Alejandro Sobrino, J. A. Olivas, C. Puente
{"title":"Mining answers for causal questions in a medical example","authors":"Alejandro Sobrino, J. A. Olivas, C. Puente","doi":"10.1109/ISDA.2011.6121694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to approach causal questions in a medical domain. Causal questions par excellence are what, how and why-questions. The ‘pyramid of questions’ shows this. At the top, why-questions are the prototype of causal questions. Usually why-questions are related to scientific explanations. Although cover law explanation is characteristically of physical sciences, it is less common in biological or medical knowledge. In medicine, laws applied to all cases are rare. It seems that doctors express their knowledge using mechanisms instead of natural laws. In this paper we will approach causal questions with the aim of: (1) answering what-questions as identifying the cause of an effect; (2) answering how-questions as selecting an appropriate part of a mechanism that relates pairs of cause-effect (3) answering why-questions as identifying ultimate causes in the answers of how-questions. In this task, we hypothesize that why-questions are related to scientific explanations in a negative and a positive note: (i) as previously said, scientific explanations in biology are based on mechanisms instead of natural laws; (ii) scientific explanations are generally concerned with deepening, providing explanations as detailed as possible. Thus, we conjecture that answers to why-questions have to find the ultimate causes in a mechanism and link them to the prior cause summarizing the intermediate nodes in order to provide a comprehensible answer. The Mackie´s INUS causality offers a theoretical support for this solution.","PeriodicalId":433207,"journal":{"name":"2011 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDA.2011.6121694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to approach causal questions in a medical domain. Causal questions par excellence are what, how and why-questions. The ‘pyramid of questions’ shows this. At the top, why-questions are the prototype of causal questions. Usually why-questions are related to scientific explanations. Although cover law explanation is characteristically of physical sciences, it is less common in biological or medical knowledge. In medicine, laws applied to all cases are rare. It seems that doctors express their knowledge using mechanisms instead of natural laws. In this paper we will approach causal questions with the aim of: (1) answering what-questions as identifying the cause of an effect; (2) answering how-questions as selecting an appropriate part of a mechanism that relates pairs of cause-effect (3) answering why-questions as identifying ultimate causes in the answers of how-questions. In this task, we hypothesize that why-questions are related to scientific explanations in a negative and a positive note: (i) as previously said, scientific explanations in biology are based on mechanisms instead of natural laws; (ii) scientific explanations are generally concerned with deepening, providing explanations as detailed as possible. Thus, we conjecture that answers to why-questions have to find the ultimate causes in a mechanism and link them to the prior cause summarizing the intermediate nodes in order to provide a comprehensible answer. The Mackie´s INUS causality offers a theoretical support for this solution.
在一个医学例子中挖掘因果问题的答案
本文的目的是探讨医学领域的因果问题。因果关系问题通常是什么、如何做和为什么这样的问题。“问题金字塔”说明了这一点。在顶部,为什么问题是因果问题的原型。通常“为什么”问题与科学解释有关。虽然掩护法的解释是物理科学的特征,但在生物或医学知识中并不常见。在医学上,适用于所有病例的法律是罕见的。医生似乎是用机制而不是自然法则来表达他们的知识。在本文中,我们将探讨因果问题的目的是:(1)回答什么问题作为确定结果的原因;(2)回答“如何”问题,选择一个机制的适当部分,将成对的因果关系联系起来;(3)回答“为什么”问题,在“如何”问题的答案中确定最终原因。在这项任务中,我们假设为什么问题以消极和积极的方式与科学解释相关:(i)如前所述,生物学中的科学解释基于机制而不是自然规律;(ii)科学解释通常涉及深化,提供尽可能详细的解释。因此,我们推测,为什么问题的答案必须在一个机制中找到最终原因,并将它们与先前原因联系起来,总结中间节点,以便提供一个可理解的答案。麦基的INUS因果关系为这一解决方案提供了理论支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信