Psychiatric Diagnosis from the Viewpoint of Computational Logic

  • Joseph Gartner
  • Terrance Swift
  • Allen Tien
  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1861)


While medical information systems have become common in the United States, commercial systems that automate or assist in the process of medical diagnosis remain uncommon. This is not surprising, since automating diagnosis requires considerable sophistication both in the understanding of medical epidemeology and in knowledge representation techniques. This paper is an interdisciplinary study of how recent results in logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning can aid in psychiatric diagnosis. We argue that to logically represent psychiatric diagnosis as codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition requires abduction over programs that include both explicit and non-stratified default negation, as well as dynamic rules that express preferences between conclusions. We show how such programs can be translated into abductive frameworks over normal logic programs and implemented using recently introduced logic programming techniques. Finally, we note how such programs are used in a commercial product Diagnostica.


Logic Program Logic Programming Adjustment Disorder Computational Logic Positive Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. Alferes, C. Damásio, and L. M. Pereira. A logic programming system for nonmonotonic reasoning. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 14(1):93–147, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira, and T. Swift. Well-founded abduction via tabled dual programs. In Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 426–440, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Brewka. Well-founded semantics for extended logic programs with dynamic preferences. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:19–36, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Brewka and T. Eiter. Preferred answer sets. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 86–97. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Damásio and L. M. Pereira. Abduction over 3-valued extended logic programs. In International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pages 29–42. Springer-Verlag, 1995. LNAI 1265.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. B. de Mesquita; W. S. Gilliam. Differential diagnosis of childhood depression: using comorbidity and symptom overlap to generate multiple hypotheses. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev, 24:157–172, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, 4th edition, 1994. Prepared by the Task Force on DSM-IV and other committees and work groups of the American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Famularo, R. Kinscherff, and T. Fenton. Psychiatric diagnoses of maltreated children: preliminary findings. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psych, 31:863–867, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Ford, R. Racusin, W. Daviss, C. Ellis, and J. Thomas. Trauma exposure among children with oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol, 67:786–789, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Gelfond and T. C. Son. Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation, pages 164–223. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Govindarajan, B. Jayaraman, and S. Mantha. Preference logic programming. In Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 731–746, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Prior, R. Eisenmajer, S. Leekam, L. Wing, J. Gould, B. Ong, and D. Dowe. Are there subgroups within the autistic spectrum? a cluster analysis of a group of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Can J Psych, 43(6):589–595, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Rosenstein. Differential diagnosis of the major progressive dementias and = depression in middle and late adulthood: a summary of the literature of the early 1990s. Neuropsychol Rev, 8:109–167, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Sakama and K. Inoue. Represending priorities in logic programs. In JICSLP, pages 82–96, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schedules for Clinical Assesment in Neuropsychiatry. World Health Organization, 1996. Version 2.1.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. van Gelder, K. Ross, and J. Schlipf. Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. JACM, 38(3):620–650, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Volkmar, A. Klin, and D. Pauls. Nosological and genetic aspects of asperger syndrome. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 39(6):893–902, September 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Gartner
    • 1
  • Terrance Swift
    • 2
  • Allen Tien
    • 3
  • Carlos Viegas Damásio
    • 4
  • Luís Moniz Pereira
    • 4
  1. 1.Medicine Rules IncStony Broon
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceSUNY at Stony BrookStony Brook
  3. 3.Medical Decision Logic IncBaltimore
  4. 4.A.I. Centre, Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations