Argumentation-Based Framework Selection for Clinical Decision Support
Clinical decision-making involves complex considerations, such as treatment options, patient preferences, and conflicting medical opinions. Argumentation frameworks provide a structured approach to modeling and reasoning through these complexities by constructing and evaluating arguments for and against specific decisions. This paper reviews existing AFs to identify the most suitable one for clinical decision support. We perform a comparative analysis of several frameworks-Dung's AF, PAF, VAF, WAF, BAF, IBIS, and QuAD-using criteria tailored to clinical decision-making needs. Our analysis suggests that QuAD and DF-QuAD are those that best satisfy our criteria.
Authors
- Jean-Baptiste Lamy (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5477-180X)
- Karima Sedki (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2712-5431)
- Nada Boudegzdame (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1409-6560)
Institutions
- Inserm (FR)
- Université Paris Cité (FR)
- Sorbonne Université (FR)
- Université Sorbonne Paris Nord (FR)
- Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers (FR)
- Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des Connaissances en e-Santé
Publication Details
- Journal
- Studies in health technology and informatics
- Published
- 2025-05-15
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3233/shti250285
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Semantic Web and Ontologies
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 4.74
Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche