医学专家系统:验证、评估和判断问题

C. Kulikowski
{"title":"医学专家系统:验证、评估和判断问题","authors":"C. Kulikowski","doi":"10.1109/ICTMA.1988.669589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medical expert systems often present quite difficult problems of validation and evaluation because their knowledge bases typically contain many implicitly represented value judgments, which may not be easily separated from statements of uncertainty and fact, as in a formal decision theoretic rnodel. Thus, it is the very flexibility of knowledge representation allowed by expert system frameworks which makes the job of knowledge validation and system performance evaluation more complex than for simpler decision support systems. And, because of the ethical and legal constraints on medicail knowledge utilization and testing, it has been difficult to produce systematic mothodologies for evaluating the performance of these systems. It is therefore not surprising that they have not been as widely adopted as expert systems in other domains which have been derived from the pioneering work in medical systems. While new methods of knowledge base refinement hold out the promise for technical improvements, issues of responsibility for the application, testing and evaluation of expert systems will continue to provide fertile ground for discussion of the extra-logical elements of decision making.","PeriodicalId":121085,"journal":{"name":"Symposium Record Policy Issues in Information and Communication Technologies in Medical Applications","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical Expert Systems: Issues of Validation, Evaluation and Judgment\",\"authors\":\"C. Kulikowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICTMA.1988.669589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Medical expert systems often present quite difficult problems of validation and evaluation because their knowledge bases typically contain many implicitly represented value judgments, which may not be easily separated from statements of uncertainty and fact, as in a formal decision theoretic rnodel. Thus, it is the very flexibility of knowledge representation allowed by expert system frameworks which makes the job of knowledge validation and system performance evaluation more complex than for simpler decision support systems. And, because of the ethical and legal constraints on medicail knowledge utilization and testing, it has been difficult to produce systematic mothodologies for evaluating the performance of these systems. It is therefore not surprising that they have not been as widely adopted as expert systems in other domains which have been derived from the pioneering work in medical systems. While new methods of knowledge base refinement hold out the promise for technical improvements, issues of responsibility for the application, testing and evaluation of expert systems will continue to provide fertile ground for discussion of the extra-logical elements of decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":121085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Symposium Record Policy Issues in Information and Communication Technologies in Medical Applications\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Symposium Record Policy Issues in Information and Communication Technologies in Medical Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTMA.1988.669589\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Symposium Record Policy Issues in Information and Communication Technologies in Medical Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTMA.1988.669589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

医学专家系统经常出现相当困难的验证和评估问题,因为他们的知识库通常包含许多隐式表示的价值判断,这些判断可能不容易与不确定性和事实的陈述分开,就像在正式的决策理论模型中一样。因此,专家系统框架所允许的知识表示的灵活性使得知识验证和系统性能评估的工作比简单的决策支持系统更加复杂。而且,由于对医学知识利用和测试的伦理和法律限制,很难产生系统的方法来评估这些系统的性能。因此,它们没有像来自医疗系统开创性工作的其他领域的专家系统那样被广泛采用,这并不奇怪。虽然知识库细化的新方法为技术改进提供了希望,但专家系统的应用、测试和评估的责任问题将继续为讨论决策的超逻辑元素提供肥沃的土壤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medical Expert Systems: Issues of Validation, Evaluation and Judgment
Medical expert systems often present quite difficult problems of validation and evaluation because their knowledge bases typically contain many implicitly represented value judgments, which may not be easily separated from statements of uncertainty and fact, as in a formal decision theoretic rnodel. Thus, it is the very flexibility of knowledge representation allowed by expert system frameworks which makes the job of knowledge validation and system performance evaluation more complex than for simpler decision support systems. And, because of the ethical and legal constraints on medicail knowledge utilization and testing, it has been difficult to produce systematic mothodologies for evaluating the performance of these systems. It is therefore not surprising that they have not been as widely adopted as expert systems in other domains which have been derived from the pioneering work in medical systems. While new methods of knowledge base refinement hold out the promise for technical improvements, issues of responsibility for the application, testing and evaluation of expert systems will continue to provide fertile ground for discussion of the extra-logical elements of decision making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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