Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analogical Reasoning in Clinical Practice with Description Logic \(\mathcal {ELH}\)

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10839))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 402 Accesses

Abstract

Measuring concept similarity in ontologies is central to the functioning of many techniques such as ontology matching, ontology learning, and many related applications in the bio-medical domain. In this paper, we explore the relationship between clinical thought and analogy. More specifically, the paper formalizes the process of analogical reasoning in the phrase of diagnosis. That is, the phrase in which physicians have to reach an accurate explanation for the symptoms and signs found in a patient. Our approach is driven by the developing similarity measure in Description Logics called \(\mathsf {sim}^\pi \). Finally, the paper relates the approach to others and discuss future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the sake of succinctness, obvious abbreviations may be used without being stated.

  2. 2.

    The precise interpretation of each symbol is given later.

  3. 3.

    We separate each sentence with a semicolon.

  4. 4.

    We note that \(\textit{a}, \textit{aa}, \textit{b}, \textit{bb}\) denote different arbitrary sentences in \(\mathcal {S}\).

  5. 5.

    We precisely explain specific intentions of taking different values for \(\pi \) in Sect. 5.

References

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. W3C Owl Working Group: OWL 2 web ontology language. Document overview, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation, W3C, December 2012

    Google Scholar 

  3. Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C., et al.: Owl 2 web ontology language profiles, vol. 27, p. 61. W3C Recommendation (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benson, T., Grieve, G.: Principles of Health Interoperability: SNOMED CT, HL7 and FHIR. HITS. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30370-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Spackman, K.: Managing clinical terminology hierarchies using algorithmic calculation of subsumption: experience with SNOMED-RT. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25(1), 25–29 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38721-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, T., Widdows, D.: Empirical distributional semantics: methods and biomedical applications. J. Biomed. Inform. 42(2), 390–405 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pedersen, T., Pakhomov, S.V., Patwardhan, S., Chute, C.G.: Measures of semantic similarity and relatedness in the biomedical domain. J. Biomed. Inform. 40(3), 288–299 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Guallart, N.: Analogical reasoning in clinical practice. In: Ribeiro, H.J. (ed.) Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. AL, vol. 25, pp. 257–273. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Price, C.: Computer-Based Diagnostic Systems. Practitioner Series, vol. 156. Springer, London (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0535-0

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Feinstein, A.R.: Clinical judgment (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Racharak, T., Tojo, S.: Tuning agent’s profile for similarity measure in description logic ELH. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, pp. 287–298 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: \(\sf sim^\pi \): a concept similarity measure under an agent’s preferences in description logic \(\cal{ELH}\). In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 480–487 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kassirer, J.P., Kopelman, R.I.: Learning clinical reasoning (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Daley, R.P.: Towards the development of an analysis of learning algorithms. In: Jantke, K.P. (ed.) AII 1986. LNCS, vol. 265, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-18081-8_81

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Haraguchi, M., Arikawa, S.: Reasoning by analogy as a partial identity between models. In: Jantke, K.P. (ed.) AII 1986. LNCS, vol. 265, pp. 61–87. Springer, Heidelberg (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-18081-8_86

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Greiner, R.: Learning by understanding analogies. In: Mitchell, T.M., Carbonell, J.G., Michalski, R.S. (eds.) Machine Learning. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science (Knowledge Representation, Learning and Expert Systems), vol. 12, pp. 81–84. Springer, Boston (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2279-5_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Goebel, R.: A sketch of analogy as reasoning with equality hypotheses. In: Jantke, K.P. (ed.) AII 1989. LNCS, vol. 397, pp. 243–253. Springer, Heidelberg (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-51734-0_65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Walton, D.N.: Argumentation schemes for argument from analogy. In: Ribeiro, H.J. (ed.) Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. AL, vol. 25, pp. 23–40. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Racharak, T., Tojo, S., Hung, N.D., Boonkwan, P.: Argument-based logic programming for analogical reasoning. In: Kurahashi, S., Ohta, Y., Arai, S., Satoh, K., Bekki, D. (eds.) JSAI-isAI 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10247, pp. 253–269. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61572-1_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Patel, V.L., Groen, G.J.: Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 10(1), 91–116 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Similarity measures for \(\cal{FL}_0\) concept descriptions from an automata-theoretic point of view. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Information and Communication Technology for Embedded Systems (IC-ICTES), pp. 1–6, March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  24. Suntisrivaraporn, B.: A similarity measure for the description logic el with unfoldable terminologies. In: INCoS, pp. 408–413 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Racharak, T., Suntisrivaraporn, B., Tojo, S.: Identifying an agent’s preferences toward similarity measures in description logics. In: Qi, G., Kozaki, K., Pan, J.Z., Yu, S. (eds.) JIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9544, pp. 201–208. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31676-5_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Cutler, P.: Problem Solving in Clinical Medicine: From Data to Diagnosis. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Ashley, K.: Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder, A.R., Oskamp, A. (eds.) Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, pp. 23–60. Springer, Dordrecht (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4146-2_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Aleven, V.: Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, Ph.D. diss. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hofstadter, D., Mitchell, M.: Concepts, analogies, and creativity. In: Proceedings of CSCSI-88, pp. 94–101, June 1988

    Google Scholar 

  31. Racharak, T., Tojo, S., Hung, N.D., Boonkwan, P.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for analogical reasoning under an agent’s preferences. In: Benferhat, S., Tabia, K., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10351, pp. 306–316. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60045-1_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Winston, P.H.: Learning and reasoning by analogy. Commun. ACM 23(12), 689–703 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 133–138. Association for Computational Linguistics (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lehmann, K., Turhan, A.-Y.: A framework for semantic-based similarity measures for \(\cal{ELH}\)-concepts. In: del Cerro, L.F., Herzig, A., Mengin, J. (eds.) JELIA 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7519, pp. 307–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33353-8_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Janowicz, K., Wilkes, M.: SIM-DLA: a novel semantic similarity measure for description logics reducing inter-concept to inter-instance similarity. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, pp. 353–367 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. D’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Esposito, F.: A dissimilarity measure for ALC concept descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1695–1699 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fanizzi, N., D’Amato, C.: A similarity measure for the ALN description logic. In: Proceedings of CILC 2006 - Italian Conference on Computational Logic, pp. 26–27 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  38. D’Amato, C., Fanizzi, N., Esposito, F.: A semantic similarity measure for expressive description logics. In: CoRR abs/0911.5043 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  39. d’Amato, C., Staab, S., Fanizzi, N.: On the influence of description logics ontologies on conceptual similarity. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Jaccard, P.: Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des alpeset des jura. Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturellese 37, 547–579 (1901)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tongphu, S., Suntisrivaraporn, B.: Algorithms for measuring similarity between ELH concept descriptions: a case study on SNOMED CT. J. Comput. Inform. 36(4), 733–764 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Phys. Dokl. 10, 707–710 (1966)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Resnik, P.: Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 448–453 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Resnik, P., et al.: Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: an information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 11, 95–130 (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Baeza-Yates, R., Ribeiro-Neto, B., et al.: Modern Information Retrieval, vol. 463. ACM Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Patwardhan, S., Pedersen, T.: Using WordNet-based context vectors to estimate the semantic relatedness of concepts. In: Proceedings of the EACL 2006 Workshop Making Sense of Sense-Bringing Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics Together, Trento, vol. 1501, pp. 1–8 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mitchell, T.M.: Machine Learning, vol. 45(37), pp. 870–877. McGraw Hill, Burr Ridge, IL (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bernstein, A., Kaufmann, E., Bürki, C., Klein, M.: How similar is it? Towards personalized similarity measures in ontologies. In: Ferstl, O.K., Sinz, E.J., Eckert, S., Isselhorst, T. (eds.) Wirtschaftsinformatik 2005, pp. 1347–1366. Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7908-1624-8_71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Woltert, P., Zakharyaschev, M.: Modal description logics: modalizing roles. Fundam. Inform. 39(4), 411–438 (1999)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the JAIST-NECTEC-SIIT dual doctoral degree program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, Computer, and Communication Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Thailand

    Teeradaj Racharak

  2. School of Information Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Ishikawa, Japan

    Teeradaj Racharak & Satoshi Tojo

Authors
  1. Teeradaj Racharak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satoshi Tojo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teeradaj Racharak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Jaap van den Herik

  2. University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ana Paula Rocha

  3. INSTICC, Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal, Setubal, Portugal

    Joaquim Filipe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Racharak, T., Tojo, S. (2018). Analogical Reasoning in Clinical Practice with Description Logic \(\mathcal {ELH}\). In: van den Herik, J., Rocha, A., Filipe, J. (eds) Agents and Artificial Intelligence. ICAART 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10839. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93581-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93581-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93580-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93581-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation