scholarly journals Multi-Classifier Approaches for Supporting Clinical Decision Making

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 699
Author(s):  
Maria Carmela Groccia ◽  
Rosita Guido ◽  
Domenico Conforti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Feature Space ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Test Sample ◽  
Classifier Systems ◽  
Medical Field ◽  
Knowledge Domains ◽  
Classifier Selection ◽  
Dynamic Classifier Selection ◽  
Systems Framework

Diagnosis is one of the most important processes in the medical field. Since the knowledge domains of clinical specialties are expanding rapidly in terms of complexity and volume of data, clinicians have, in many cases, difficulties to make an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, intelligent and quantitative support for diagnostic tasks can be effectively exploited for improving the effectiveness of the process and reduce misdiagnosis. In this respect, Multi-Classifier Systems represent one of the most promising approaches within Machine Learning methodologies. This paper proposes a Multi-Classifier Systems framework for supporting diagnostic activities with the aim of improving diagnostic accuracy. The framework uses and combines several classification algorithms by dynamically selecting the most competent classifier according to the test sample and its location in the feature space. Here, we extend our previous research. The new experimental results, compared with several multi classifier techniques, based on dynamic classifier selection, on classification datasets, show that the performance of the proposed framework exceeds the state-of-the-art dynamic classifier selection techniques.

scholarly journals Who knows best? Negotiations of knowledge in clinical decision making

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Bredahl Jacobsen ◽  
Helle Max Martin ◽  
Vibe Hjelholt Baker
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Knowledge Domains ◽  
Clinical Encounters

 This article examines the conflicts which arise when patients with chronic disease engage in decision making with health professionals about their medication. These are conflicts in the sense of discrepancies or incompatibilities between perceptions or opinions of different people engaged in a common endeavour. The paper is based on three qualitative research studies and presents one case from each study to illustrate analytical findings. Data collected in the original studies consisted of observations of clinical encounters and semi-structured interviews; in total 45 interviews with patients and 23 with health professionals. The analysis shows different conflicts, which arise during the process of making decisions about medication. These conflicts arise when: 1) Patients deliberately hold back information about their medication for fear of challenging clinicians’ authority; 2) The decision making process takes place in an environment, which does not support patient involvement; and 3) Patients refer to pharmacological knowledge, but are considered ill-equipped to understand and apply this knowledge by health professionals. The article shows that these conflicts typically revolve around the legitimate access to and use of pharmacological knowledge. These results have important implications for the current discussions of shared decision making. In shared decision making, knowledge about medication is typically regarded as the domain of the doctor. We argue that there is a need for a widening of the concept of partnership, which is central to shared decision making, to encompass breadth of patient knowledge about his/her situation, disease and treatment. Patients with chronic diseases need to be actively invited to disclose the extensive clinical knowledge they acquire over time, thereby creating a legitimate space for this knowledge in clinical consultations, and avoiding that conflicts over knowledge domains lead to unnecessary suffering and wasted resources.

Preliminary Findings on the Use of Session Questionnaires to Improve Clinician-Client Alliance With Special Consideration to Clinical Education

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-60
Author(s):  
Anu Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Clinical Education ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Therapeutic Outcomes ◽  
Specific Feedback ◽  
Stakeholder Perspective

ASHA's focus on evidence-based practice (EBP) includes the family/stakeholder perspective as an important tenet in clinical decision making. The common factors model for treatment effectiveness postulates that clinician-client alliance positively impacts therapeutic outcomes and may be the most important factor for success. One strategy to improve alliance between a client and clinician is the use of outcome questionnaires. In the current study, eight parents of toddlers who attended therapy sessions at a university clinic responded to a session outcome questionnaire that included both rating scale and descriptive questions. Six graduate students completed a survey that included a question about the utility of the questionnaire. Results indicated that the descriptive questions added value and information compared to using only the rating scale. The students were varied in their responses regarding the effectiveness of the questionnaire to increase their comfort with parents. Information gathered from the questionnaire allowed for specific feedback to graduate students to change behaviors and created opportunities for general discussions regarding effective therapy techniques. In addition, the responses generated conversations between the client and clinician focused on clients' concerns. Involving the stakeholder in identifying both effective and ineffective aspects of therapy has advantages for clinical practice and education.

Clinical Decision-Making for Stroke and Aphasia in the Older Adult

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Hinckley
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cognitive Profile ◽  
Focal Lesion ◽  
Cognitive Profiles ◽  
Supportive Communication ◽  
Spaced Retrieval

Abstract A patient with aphasia that is uncomplicated by other cognitive abilities will usually show a primary impairment of language. The frequency of additional cognitive impairments associated with cerebrovascular disease, multiple (silent or diagnosed) infarcts, or dementia increases with age and can complicate a single focal lesion that produces aphasia. The typical cognitive profiles of vascular dementia or dementia due to cerebrovascular disease may differ from the cognitive profile of patients with Alzheimer's dementia. In order to complete effective treatment selection, clinicians must know the cognitive profile of the patient and choose treatments accordingly. When attention, memory, and executive function are relatively preserved, strategy-based and conversation-based interventions provide the best choices to target personally relevant communication abilities. Examples of treatments in this category include PACE and Response Elaboration Training. When patients with aphasia have co-occurring episodic memory or executive function impairments, treatments that rely less on these abilities should be selected. Examples of treatments that fit these selection criteria include spaced retrieval and errorless learning. Finally, training caregivers in the use of supportive communication strategies is helpful to patients with aphasia, with or without additional cognitive complications.

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Management of thoracic aortic lesions - the future is endovascular

VASA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weidenhagen ◽  
Bombien ◽  
Meimarakis ◽  
Geisler ◽  
A. Koeppel
Keyword(s):  
Thoracic Aorta ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Traumatic Rupture ◽  
Descending Thoracic Aorta ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Aneurysm Dissection

Open surgical repair of lesions of the descending thoracic aorta, such as aneurysm, dissection and traumatic rupture, has been the “state-of-the-art” treatment for many decades. However, in specialized cardiovascular centers, thoracic endovascular aortic repair and hybrid aortic procedures have been implemented as novel treatment options. The current clinical results show that these procedures can be performed with low morbidity and mortality rates. However, due to a lack of randomized trials, the level of reliability of these new treatment modalities remains a matter of discussion. Clinical decision-making is generally based on the experience of the vascular center as well as on individual factors, such as life expectancy, comorbidity, aneurysm aetiology, aortic diameter and morphology. This article will review and discuss recent publications of open surgical, hybrid thoracic aortic (in case of aortic arch involvement) and endovascular repair in complex pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document