Verification of Medical Guidelines by Model Checking – A Case Study

  • Simon Bäumler
  • Michael Balser
  • Andriy Dunets
  • Wolfgang Reif
  • Jonathan Schmitt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3925)


This paper presents a case study on how to apply formal modeling and verification in the context of quality improvement in medical healthcare. The aim is to verify quality requirements of medical guidelines and clinical treatment protocols that are used to standardize patient care both for general practitioners and hospitals. This research is supported by the European Commission’s IST program and brings together experts from computer science, artificial intelligence in medicine, hospitals, and the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO). We present the process of formal modeling and verification of guidelines using the modeling language Asbru, temporal logic for expressing the quality requirements, and model checking for proof and error detection. The approach is illustrated with a case study on a guideline from the American Association for Pediatrics on “Jaundice in healthy Newborns”.


Model checking verification formal methods Asbru abstraction medical guidelines 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American Academy of Pediatrics, Provisional Committee for Quality Improvement and Subcommittee on Hyperbilirubinemia. Practice parameter: management of hyperbilirubinemia in the healthy term newborn Pediatrics 94, 558-565 (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balser, M., Reif, W., Schellhorn, G., Stenzel, K., Thums, A.: Formal system development with KIV. In: Maibaum, T. (ed.) FASE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1783, p. 363. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balser, M., Duelli, C., Reif, W.: Formal Semantics of Asbru - An Overview. In: Proc. of the 6th World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology(IDPT 2002) (June 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: ACM Symposium of Programming Language, pp. 238–252 (1977)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dams, D.: Abstract Interpretation and Partition Refinement for Model Checking. PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dams, D., Gerth, R., Grumberg, O.: Abstract interpretation of reactive systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(2), 253–291 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pnueli, A., Josko, B., Hungar, H., Damm, W.: A Compositional Real-time Semantics of STATEMATE Designs. In: de Roever, W.-P., Langmaack, H., Pnueli, A. (eds.) COMPOS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1536, p. 186. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duftschmid, G., Miksch, S.: Knowledge-based verification of clinical guidelines by detection of anomalies OEGAI Journal, 37 – 39 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen Emerson, E.: Temporal and Modal Logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics, pp. 995–1072. North- Holland Pub. Co., MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Field, M.J., Lohr, K.N.: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox, J., Johns, N., Lyons, C., Rahmanzadeh, A., Thomson, R., Wilson, P.: PROforma: a general technology for clinical decision support systems. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 54, 59–67 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godefroid, P., Huth, M., Jagadeesan, R.: Abstraction-based Model Checking using Modal Transition Systems. In: Larsen, K.G., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2154, pp. 426–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grumberg, O.: Abstractions and Reductions in Model Checking. Nato Science Series, vol. 62. Marktoberdorf summer school (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graf, S., Saidi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long, D.E.: Model checking, Abstraction, and Compositional Reasoning. PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMillan, K.L.: Symbolic Model Checking: An Approach to the State Explosion Problem. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shahar, Y., Miksch, S., Johnson, P.: The Asgaard project: a task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of time-oriented clinical guidelines. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 29–51 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ten Teije, A., Marcos, M., Balser, M., van Croonenborg, J., Duelli, C., van Harmelem, F., Lucas, P., Miksch, S., Reif, W., Rosenbrand, K., Seyfang, A., Coltel, J., Jovell, A.: Supporting the development of medical protocols through formal methods. In: Proc. of the Symposium on Computerized Guidelines and Protocols (CGP 2004), IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larsen, K.G., Peterson, P., Yi, W.: UPPAL in a nuttshell. Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer 1(1-2), 134–152 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Bäumler
    • 1
  • Michael Balser
    • 1
  • Andriy Dunets
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Reif
    • 1
  • Jonathan Schmitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik und Programmiersprachen, Institut für InformatikUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations