Psychiatric Diagnosis from the Viewpoint of Computational Logic
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.
KeywordsLogic Program Logic Programming Adjustment Disorder Computational Logic Positive Criterion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.K. Govindarajan, B. Jayaraman, and S. Mantha. Preference logic programming. In Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 731–746, 1995.Google Scholar
- 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
- 14.C. Sakama and K. Inoue. Represending priorities in logic programs. In JICSLP, pages 82–96, 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.Schedules for Clinical Assesment in Neuropsychiatry. World Health Organization, 1996. Version 2.1.Google Scholar
- 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