skip to main content
10.1145/1809085.1809092acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A benchmark for evaluating software engineering techniques for improving medical processes

Published:03 May 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

The software engineering and medical informatics communities have been developing a range of approaches for reasoning about medical processes. To facilitate the comparison of such approaches, it would be desirable to have a set of medical examples, or benchmarks, that are easily available, described in considerable detail, and characterized in terms of the real-world complexities they capture. This paper presents one such benchmark and discusses a list of desiderata that medical benchmarks can be evaluated against.

References

  1. G. S. Avrunin, J. C. Corbett, and M. B. Dwyer. Benchmarking finite-state verifiers. Softw. Tools for Technology Transfer, 2(4):317--320, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. G. Cass, B. S. Lerner, J. Stanley M. Sutton, E. K. McCall, et al. Little-JIL/Juliette: a process definition language and interpreter. In Proc. 22nd Intl. Conf. Softw. Eng., 754--757, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. B. Chen, G. S. Avrunin, E. A. Henneman, L. A. Clarke, et al. Analyzing medical processes. In Proc. 30th Intl. Conf. Softw. Eng., 623--632, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Christov, B. Chen, G. S. Avrunin, L. A. Clarke, et al. Rigorously defining and analyzing medical processes: An experience report. MoDELS 2007 Wkshps, Springer, LNCS 5002, 118--131, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. L. Cobleigh, G. S. Avrunin, and L. A. Clarke. User guidance for creating precise and accessible property specifications. In Proc. 14th ACM SIGSOFT Intl. Symp. Found. Softw. Eng., 208--218, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Damas, B. Lambeau, F. Roucoux, and A. van Lamsweerde. Analyzing critical process models through behavior model synthesis. In Proc. 2009 31st Intl. Conf. Softw. Eng., 441--451, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. B. Dwyer, G. S. Avrunin, and J. C. Corbett. Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification. In Proc. 21st Intl. Conf. Softw. Eng., 411--420, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. B. Dwyer, L. A. Clarke, J. M. Cobleigh, and G. Naumovich. Flow analysis for verifying properties of concurrent software systems. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 13(4):359--430, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Konrad and B. H. C. Cheng. Real-time specification patterns. In Proc. 27th Intl. Conf. Softw. Eng., 372--381, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. S. T. Mark and M. A. Musen. A flexible approach to guideline modeling. In Proc. AMIA Symp., 420--424, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Peleg, A. Boxwala, O. Ogunyemi, Q. Zeng, et al. GLIF3: The evolution of a guideline representation format. In Proc. AMIA Symp., 645--649, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Peleg, S. W. Tu, J. Bury, P. Ciccarese, et al. Comparing computer-interpretable guideline models: A case-study approach. JAMIA, 10:2003, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Y. Shahar, S. Miksch, and P. Johnson. The Asgaard project: A task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of time-oriented clinical guidelines. In A. I. in Med., 29--51, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions. Nat. Acad. Press, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. ten Teije, M. Marcos, M. Balser, J. van Croonenborg, et al. Improving medical protocols by formal methods. A. I. in Med., 36(3):193--209, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. van Lamsweerde. Formal specification: A roadmap. In The Future of Software Engineering, 147--159. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. M. Wilkinson and K. V. Leuven. Procedure checklist for administering a blood transfusion. http://davisplus.fadavis.com/wilkinson/Procedure_Checklists/PC_Ch36-01.doc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. M. Wilkinson and K. Van Leuven. Fundamentals of Nursing. F. A. Davis Company, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SEHC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care
    May 2010
    126 pages
    ISBN:9781605589732
    DOI:10.1145/1809085

    Copyright © 2010 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 3 May 2010

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Upcoming Conference

    ICSE 2025

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader