• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Evaluating four diagnostic methods with acute abdominal pain cases.

作者信息

Puppe B, Ohmann C, Goos K, Puppe F, Mootz O

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Würzburg.

出版信息

Methods Inf Med. 1995 Sep;34(4):361-8.

PMID:7476467
Abstract

Contemporary work in medical decision support is characterized by a multitude of methods. To investigate their relative strengths and weaknesses, we built four diagnostic expert systems based on different methods (Bayes, case-based classification, heuristic classification) for analysis of the same set of 1254 cases of acute abdominal pain previously documented in a prospective multicenter study. The results of the comparative evaluation indicate that differences in overall performance are relatively small (statistically not significant). The performance depends more on the quality of the knowledge base and the case data than on the inference methods of the expert systems. Methods relying exclusively on empirical knowledge (Bayes, case-based classification) tend to have slightly higher overall performance scores due to a diagnostic bias toward ordinary and common diseases. By contrast, methods operating with expert knowledge (e.g., heuristic classification) perform slightly worse overall, but are more sensitive toward uncommon (serious) diseases.

摘要

相似文献

1
Evaluating four diagnostic methods with acute abdominal pain cases.
Methods Inf Med. 1995 Sep;34(4):361-8.
2
MEDUSA: a fuzzy expert system for medical diagnosis of acute abdominal pain.美杜莎:一种用于急性腹痛医学诊断的模糊专家系统。
Methods Inf Med. 1994 Dec;33(5):522-9.
3
Evaluation of automatic knowledge acquisition techniques in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. Acute Abdominal Pain Study Group.急性腹痛诊断中自动知识获取技术的评估。急性腹痛研究小组。
Artif Intell Med. 1996 Feb;8(1):23-36. doi: 10.1016/0933-3657(95)00018-6.
4
The relative accuracy of a variety of medical diagnostic programs.各种医学诊断程序的相对准确性。
Methods Inf Med. 1994 Oct;33(4):402-16.
5
A Bayesian model for triage decision support.一种用于分诊决策支持的贝叶斯模型。
Int J Med Inform. 2006 May;75(5):403-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.028. Epub 2005 Sep 2.
6
A sequential decision-theoretic model for medical diagnostic system.一种用于医学诊断系统的序贯决策理论模型。
Technol Health Care. 2015;23 Suppl 1:S37-42. doi: 10.3233/thc-150926.
7
A probabilistic rule-based expert system.一个基于概率规则的专家系统。
Int J Biomed Comput. 1993 Sep;33(2):129-48. doi: 10.1016/0020-7101(93)90030-a.
8
Are normative expert systems appropriate for diagnostic pathology?规范性专家系统适用于诊断病理学吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995 Mar-Apr;2(2):85-93. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1995.95261910.
9
TiMeDDx--a multi-phase anchor-based diagnostic decision-support model.TiMeDDx——一种多阶段基于锚点的诊断决策支持模型。
J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):111-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2009.08.001. Epub 2009 Aug 7.
10
Relationships among performance scores of four diagnostic decision support systems.四个诊断决策支持系统性能得分之间的关系。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996 May-Jun;3(3):208-15. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1996.96310634.

引用本文的文献

1
Modeling paradigms for medical diagnostic decision support: a survey and future directions.医学诊断决策支持的建模范例:调查与未来方向。
J Med Syst. 2012 Oct;36(5):3029-49. doi: 10.1007/s10916-011-9780-4. Epub 2011 Oct 1.
2
Does size really matter--using a decision tree approach for comparison of three different databases from the medical field of acute appendicitis.规模真的重要吗——使用决策树方法比较急性阑尾炎医学领域的三个不同数据库。
J Med Syst. 2002 Oct;26(5):465-77. doi: 10.1023/a:1016461301710.
3
[Clinical standardization in acute abdominal pain].
[急性腹痛的临床标准化]
Langenbecks Arch Chir. 1996;381(2):65-74. doi: 10.1007/BF00183935.