scholarly journals Combine Conflicting Evidence Based on the Belief Entropy and IOWA Operator

IEEE Access ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 120724-120733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Tao ◽  
Fuyuan Xiao
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Belief Entropy ◽  
Iowa Operator

scholarly journals Research on Improvement of the Combination Method for Conflicting Evidence Based on Historical Data

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 762
Author(s):  
Shuai Yuan ◽  
Honglei Wang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Rule ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
Evidence Theory ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
Combination Method ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Combination Methods ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
The Difference

In a multi-sensor system, due to the difference of performance of sensors and the environment in which the sensor collects evidence, evidence collected will be highly conflicting, which leads to the failure of D-S evidence theory. The current research on combination methods of conflicting evidence focuses on eliminating the problem of "Zadeh paradox" brought by conflicting evidence, but do not distinguish the evidence from different sources effectively. In this paper, the credibility of each piece of evidence to be combined is weighted based on historical data, and the modified evidence is obtained by weighted average. Then the final result is obtained by combining the modified evidence using D-S evidence theory, and the improved decision rule is used for the final decision. After the decision, the system updates and stores the historical data based on actual results. The improved decision rule can solve the problem that the system cannot make a decision when there are two or more propositions corresponding to the maximum support in the final combination result. This method satisfies commutative law and associative law, so it has the symmetry that can meet the needs of the combination of time-domain evidence. Numerical examples show that the combination method of conflict evidence based on historical data can not only solve the problem of “Zadeh paradox”, but also obtain more reasonable results.

scholarly journals Evaluating the clinical validity of gene-disease associations: an evidence-based framework developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha T. Strande ◽  
Erin Rooney Riggs ◽  
Adam H. Buchanan ◽  
Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy ◽  
Marina DiStefano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Measurement ◽  
Genomic Variation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Clinical Validity ◽  
Sequencing Technology ◽  
Mendelian Disorders ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Disease Associations ◽  
Qualitative Classification

AbstractWith advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship, and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semi-quantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship which correlates to a qualitative classification: “Definitive”, “Strong”, “Moderate”, “Limited”, “No Reported Evidence” or “Conflicting Evidence.” Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived using this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

Translating science into practice in clinical psychology: A reformulation of the evidence-based practice inquiry model

2021 ◽  
pp. 095935432110598
Author(s):  
Tony Ward ◽  
Brian D. Haig ◽  
Max McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Information Overload ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Social And Cultural Factors

The model of evidence-based practice (EBP) directs clinicians to integrate the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, client preferences and values, and social and cultural factors in the assessment and treatment of psychological problems. Despite its many strengths, the five-step inquiry component of the EBP model suffers from several conceptual and practical problems that make it difficult to implement in practice. In this article, we first outline the transdisciplinary EBP model. Second, several criticisms of the overall EBP model are outlined and briefly discussed. Third, five pressing problems in the inquiry component of the EBP model are identified: (a) information overload, (b) a focus on questions rather than tasks, (c) neglect of theory, (d) difficulty dealing with conflicting evidence, and (e) an oversimplified view of the role of values in research and practice. Fourth, we suggest ways of modifying the inquiry part of the model to address these problems.

Combination of Conflicting Evidence Based on Relative Entropy

2015 ◽  
Vol 724 ◽  
pp. 318-322
Author(s):  
Shang Wu ◽  
Guo Chu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Relative Entropy ◽  
Evidence Theory ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Extract Information

Combination of conflicting evidence usually resulted in illogical outcome. In order to solve this problem, an approach to acquire evidence reliability based on relative entropy was proposed by researching the evidence theory and relative entropy. Firstly, the weights of evidences were calculated by evidence distance, reference evidence was obtained by weighting and meaning. Then relative reliabilities were achieved by calculating the relative entropy between original evidence and reference evidence. In the end, final outcome was achieved by D-S composition. This method can commendably extract information in the conflict evidences. The result of the simulation proves it well.

We Agree, Don’t We? The Delphi Method for Health Environments Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-23
Author(s):  
Ellen Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Built Environment ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Healthcare Design ◽  
Geographically Dispersed ◽  
Statistical Representation ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Design Expertise ◽  
The Subject

Objective: This overview is intended to provide the process framework for built environment researchers to use the Delphi method. The article outlines the methodological criteria originally established for the Delphi method, as well as commonly accepted modifications, to advance guidance for evidence-based built environment considerations. Background: Increasingly used in healthcare research, the Delphi method is a process for gaining consensus through controlled feedback from a panel—a group made up of experts or individuals knowledgeable on the subject. The method is often used where there is limited or conflicting evidence, where participants may be geographically dispersed, and where anonymity is desired to control for dominant individuals. The Delphi method consists of panel selection, development of content surveys, and iterative stages of anonymous responses to gain consensus. Panelists receive feedback after each round in the form of a statistical representation of the overall group’s response. The goal of multiple iterations in the Delphi method is to reduce the range of responses and gain expert consensus, which is often seen as more credible than conjecture or individual opinion. Conclusion: With a geographic diversity of healthcare design expertise, and with so many aspects of healthcare design lacking a robust body of supporting empirical research, the Delphi method is well-suited to developing evidence-based design recommendations and considerations for healthcare built environments.

scholarly journals A Prescription Trend Analysis of Methylphenidate: Relation to Study Reports on Efficacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maruschka N. Sluiter ◽  
Ymkje Anna de Vries ◽  
Lotte G. Koning ◽  
Eelko Hak ◽  
Jens H. J. Bos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trend Analysis ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Prescription Data ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
New Evidence

Abstract Use of methylphenidate in children has increased substantially, despite conflicting evidence regarding efficacy. In this study, prescription data were analyzed in relation to the publication of new evidence regarding efficacy. Incidence rates and prescribed doses of methylphenidate increased, with a decline during the last few years. Duration of use is still increasing. In half of the cases, starting dosages are higher than recommended in guidelines. There was little evidence that publication of new evidence directly influenced the use of methylphenidate. Recent and critical study findings should receive more attention to contribute to the development and use of treatment guidelines for ADHD and evidence-based methylphenidate use.

scholarly journals Lymph Node Surgery - Stepwise Retirement for the Breast Surgeon?

Breast Care ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Landin ◽  
Walter P. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Axillary Lymph ◽  
Regional Nodal Irradiation ◽  
Axillary Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Breast Surgeon ◽  
Conflicting Evidence

Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has been standard of care for all patients with breast cancer until the 1990s. The stepwise retreat of breast surgeons from the axilla began after the introduction of the sentinel lymph node procedure. The evidence based clinical trend toward the omission of ALND has advanced to include patients with affected nodes, and several ongoing randomized controlled trials are evaluating the remaining indications for ALND. Conflicting with this trend toward less axillary surgery, indication and extent of regional nodal irradiation are currently broadened, equally supported by evidence from randomized trials. The present review summarizes this conflicting evidence, presents ongoing trials, and discusses the current and future optimal regional management of patients with affected nodes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document