IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v219y2012i3p564-573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A belief rule-based decision support system for clinical risk assessment of cardiac chest pain

Author

Listed:
  • Kong, Guilan
  • Xu, Dong-Ling
  • Body, Richard
  • Yang, Jian-Bo
  • Mackway-Jones, Kevin
  • Carley, Simon

Abstract

This paper describes a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for risk stratification of patients with cardiac chest pain. A newly developed belief rule-based inference methodology-RIMER was employed for developing the prototype. Based on the belief rule-based inference methodology, the prototype CDSS can deal with uncertainties in both clinical domain knowledge and clinical data. Moreover, the prototype can automatically update its knowledge base via a belief rule base (BRB) learning module which can adjust BRB through accumulated historical clinical cases. The domain specific knowledge used to construct the knowledge base of the prototype was learned from real patient data. We simulated a set of 1000 patients in cardiac chest pain to validate the prototype. The belief rule-based prototype CDSS has been found to perform extremely well. Firstly, the system can provide more reliable and informative diagnosis recommendations than manual diagnosis using traditional rules when there are clinical uncertainties. Secondly, the diagnostic performance of the system can be significantly improved after training the BRB through accumulated clinical cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Kong, Guilan & Xu, Dong-Ling & Body, Richard & Yang, Jian-Bo & Mackway-Jones, Kevin & Carley, Simon, 2012. "A belief rule-based decision support system for clinical risk assessment of cardiac chest pain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 564-573.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:219:y:2012:i:3:p:564-573
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221711009842
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    2. Yuan, Yufei & Feldhamer, Stuart & Gafni, Amiram & Fyfe, Fran & Ludwin, David, 2002. "The development and evaluation of a fuzzy logic expert system for renal transplantation assignment: Is this a useful tool?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 152-173, October.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    4. Charles E. Metz & Benjamin A. Herman & Cheryl A. Roe, 1998. "Statistical Comparison of Two ROC-curve Estimates Obtained from Partially-paired Datasets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 110-121, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    2. Hai-Long Zhu & Shan-Shan Liu & Yuan-Yuan Qu & Xiao-Xia Han & Wei He & You Cao, 2022. "A new risk assessment method based on belief rule base and fault tree analysis," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(3), pages 420-438, June.
    3. Wan, Chengpeng & Yan, Xinping & Zhang, Di & Qu, Zhuohua & Yang, Zaili, 2019. "An advanced fuzzy Bayesian-based FMEA approach for assessing maritime supply chain risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 222-240.
    4. Al-Ebbini, Lina & Oztekin, Asil & Chen, Yao, 2016. "FLAS: Fuzzy lung allocation system for US-based transplantations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1051-1065.
    5. Yu, Haiyan & Yang, Ching-Chi & Yu, Ping, 2023. "Constrained optimization for stratified treatment rules in reducing hospital readmission rates of diabetic patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(3), pages 1355-1364.
    6. Yuan Chen & Zhijie Zhou & Lihao Yang & Guanyu Hu & Xiaoxia Han & Shuaiwen Tang, 2022. "A novel structural safety assessment method of large liquid tank based on the belief rule base and finite element method," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(3), pages 458-476, June.
    7. Feng, Zhichao & Zhou, Zhijie & Hu, Changhua & Ban, Xiaojun & Hu, Guanyu, 2020. "A safety assessment model based on belief rule base with new optimization method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    2. Zhou, Zhi-Jie & Hu, Chang-Hua & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chen, Mao-Yin & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2010. "A model for real-time failure prognosis based on hidden Markov model and belief rule base," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 269-283, November.
    3. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    4. Jun Liu & Jian-Bo Yang & Da Ruan & Luis Martinez & Jin Wang, 2008. "Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 143-168, October.
    5. Phillips, Jason & Whiting, Kai, 2016. "A geocybernetic analysis of the principles of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 248-265.
    6. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    7. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    8. Maddulapalli, Anil Kumar & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2012. "Estimation, modeling, and aggregation of missing survey data for prioritizing customer voices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 762-776.
    9. Weidong Zhu & Shaorong Li & Hongtao Zhang & Tianjiao Zhang & Zhimin Li, 2022. "Evaluation of scientific research projects on the basis of evidential reasoning approach under the perspective of expert reliability," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 275-298, January.
    10. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    11. Dong-Ling Xu, 2012. "An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 163-187, May.
    12. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    13. Chaoyu Zheng & Benhong Peng & Xuan Zhao & Anxia Wan & Mu Yue, 2023. "A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 925-964, August.
    14. Behnam Vahdani & Meghdad Salimi & Seyed Meysam Mousavi, 2017. "A New Compromise Solution Model Based on Dantzig–Wolfe Decomposition for Solving Belief Multi-Objective Nonlinear Programming Problems with Block Angular Structure," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 333-387, March.
    15. Zhang, Mei-Jing & Wang, Ying-Ming & Li, Ling-Hui & Chen, Sheng-Qun, 2017. "A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 1005-1015.
    16. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Yang, Jian-bo, 2015. "A group decision-making approach based on evidential reasoning for multiple criteria sorting problem with uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 858-873.
    17. Divya Choudhary & Ravi Shankar & Alok Choudhary, 2020. "An Integrated Approach for Modeling Sustainability Risks in Freight Transportation Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 858-883, April.
    18. Chao Fu & Dong-Ling Xu, 2016. "Determining attribute weights to improve solution reliability and its application to selecting leading industries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 401-426, October.
    19. Sadeghi, Aliasghar & Farhad, Hamid & Mohammadzadeh Moghaddam, Abolfazl & Jalili Qazizadeh, Morteza, 2018. "Identification of accident-prone sections in roadways with incomplete and uncertain inspection-based information: A distributed hazard index based on evidential reasoning approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 278-289.
    20. Gao, Bin & Ni, Ming-Fang, 2009. "A note on article "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees"," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 809-812, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:219:y:2012:i:3:p:564-573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.