A community-of-practice-based evaluation methodology for knowledge intensive computational methods and its application to multimorbidity decision support.

OBJECTIVE: The study has dual objectives. Our first objective (1) is to develop a community-of-practice-based evaluation methodology for knowledge-intensive computational methods. We target a whitebox analysis of the computational methods to gain insight on their functional features and inner workings. In more detail, we aim to answer evaluation questions on (i) support offered by computational methods for functional features within the application domain; and (ii) in-depth characterizations of the underlying computational processes, models, data and knowledge of the computational methods. Our second objective (2) involves applying the evaluation methodology to answer questions (i) and (ii) for knowledge-intensive clinical decision support (CDS) methods, which operationalize clinical knowledge as computer interpretable guidelines (CIG); we focus on multimorbidity CIG-based clinical decision support (MGCDS) methods that target multimorbidity treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our methodology directly involves the research community of practice in (a) identifying functional features within the application domain; (b) defining exemplar case studies covering these features; and (c) solving the case studies using their developed computational methods-research groups detail their solutions and functional feature support in solution reports. Next, the study authors (d) perform a qualitative analysis of the solution reports, identifying and characterizing common themes (or dimensions) among the computational methods. This methodology is well suited to perform whitebox analysis, as it directly involves the respective developers in studying inner workings and feature support of computational methods. Moreover, the established evaluation parameters (e.g., features, case studies, themes) constitute a re-usable benchmark framework, which can be used to evaluate new computational methods as they are developed. We applied our community-of-practice-based evaluation methodology on MGCDS methods. RESULTS: Six research groups submitted comprehensive solution reports for the exemplar case studies. Solutions for two of these case studies were reported by all groups. We identified four evaluation dimensions: detection of adverse interactions, management strategy representation, implementation paradigms, and human-in-the-loop support. Based on our whitebox analysis, we present answers to the evaluation questions (i) and (ii) for MGCDS methods. DISCUSSION: The proposed evaluation methodology includes features of illuminative and comparison-based approaches; focusing on understanding rather than judging/scoring or identifying gaps in current methods. It involves answering evaluation questions with direct involvement of the research community of practice, who participate in setting up evaluation parameters and solving exemplar case studies. Our methodology was successfully applied to evaluate six MGCDS knowledge-intensive computational methods. We established that, while the evaluated methods provide a multifaceted set of solutions with different benefits and drawbacks, no single MGCDS method currently provides a comprehensive solution for MGCDS. CONCLUSION: We posit that our evaluation methodology, applied here to gain new insights into MGCDS, can be used to assess other types of knowledge-intensive computational methods and answer other types of evaluation questions. Our case studies can be accessed at our GitHub repository (https://github.com/william-vw/MGCDS).

Using graph rewriting to operationalize medical knowledge for the revision of concurrently applied clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are patient management tools that synthesize medical knowledge into an actionable format. CPGs are disease specific with limited applicability to the management of complex patients suffering from multimorbidity. For the management of these patients, CPGs need to be augmented with secondary medical knowledge coming from a variety of knowledge repositories. The operationalization of this knowledge is key to increasing CPGs' uptake in clinical practice. In this work, we propose an approach to operationalizing secondary medical knowledge inspired by graph rewriting. We assume that the CPGs can be represented as task network models, and provide an approach for representing and applying codified medical knowledge to a specific patient encounter. We formally define revisions that model and mitigate adverse interactions between CPGs and we use a vocabulary of terms to instantiate these revisions. We demonstrate the application of our approach using synthetic and clinical examples. We conclude by identifying areas for future work with the vision of developing a theory of mitigation that will facilitate the development of comprehensive decision support for the management of multimorbid patients.