Online Argumentation-Based Platform for Recommending Medical Literature

  • Andrei MocanuEmail author
  • Xiuyi Fan
  • Francesca Toni
  • Matthew Williams
  • Jiarong Chen
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 46)


In medical practice, choosing the correct treatment is a key problem [1]. In this work, we present an online medical recommendation system, RecoMedic, that selects most relevant medical literature for patients. RecoMedic maintains a medical literature repository in which users can add new articles, query existing articles, compare articles and search articles guided by patient information. RecoMedic uses argumentation to accomplish the article selection. Thus, upon identifying relevant articles, RecoMedic also explains its selection. RecoMedic can be deployed using single-agent as well as multi-agent implementations. The developed system has been experimented with by senior medical Ph.D students from Southern Medical University in China.


Brain Metastasis Medical Literature Recommendation System Decision Framework Performance Status Score 
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.



The first author was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/159/1.5/S/ 133255, Project ID 133255 (2014), co-financed by the European Social Fund within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007–2013.

The second and third authors were supported by the EPSRC project Transparent Rational Decisions by Argumentation: EP/J020915/1.


  1. 1.
    Yildirim, P., Majnaric, L., Ekmekci, O., Holzinger, A.: Knowledge discovery of drug data on the example of adverse reaction prediction. BMC Bioinform. 15(Suppl 6), S7 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. AIJ 171(10–15), 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Assumption-based argumentation. In: Argumentation in AI, pp. 199–218. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan, X., Toni, F.: Decision making with assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the TAFA (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fan, X., Craven, R., Singer, R., Toni, F., Williams, M.: Assumption-based argumentation for decision-making with preferences: a medical case study. In: Proceedings of the CLIMA (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan, X., Toni, F., Mocanu, A., Williams, M.: Multi-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matt, P.A., Toni, F., Vaccari, J.: Dominant decisions by argumentation agents. In: Proceedings of the ArgMAS. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Craven, R., Toni, F., Williams, M.: Graph-based dispute derivations in assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of the TAFA (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langley, R.E., Stephens, R.J., Nankivell, M., Pugh, C., Moore, B., Navani, N., Wilson, P., Faivre-Finn, C., Barton, R., Parmar, M.K., Mulvenna, P.M.: QUARTZ Investigators. Interim data from the Medical Research Council QUARTZ Trial: does whole brain radiotherapy affect the survival and quality of life of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer? Clin. Oncol. (R Coll Radiol). 25(3), e23-30 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2012.11.002. Epub 2012 Dec 2. PubMed PMID: 23211715Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aoyama, H., Shirato, H., Tago, M., Nakagawa, K., Toyoda, T., Hatano, K., Kenjyo, M., Oya, M., Hirota, S., Shioura, H., Kunieda, E., Inomata, T., Hayakawa, K., Katoh, N., Kobashi, G.: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 295(21), 2483–2491 (2006). PubMed PMID: 16757720Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bellifemine, F., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE (Wiley Series in Agent Technology). Wiley (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graham, P.H., Bucci, J., Browne, L.: Randomized comparison of whole brain radiotherapy, 20 Gy in four daily fractions versus 40 Gy in 20 twice-daily fractions, for brain metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 77(3), 648–654 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.032. Epub 2009 Oct 14. PubMed PMID: 19836153Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang, E.L., Wefel, J.S., Hess, K.R., Allen, P.K.: PK, F.F. Lang, D.G. Kornguth, R.B. Arbuckle, J.M. Swint, A.S. Shiu, M.H. Maor, C.A. Meyers. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 10(11), 1037–1044 (2009). doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70263-3. Epub 2009 Oct 2. PubMed PMID: 19801201Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kocher, M., Soffietti, R., Abacioglu, U., Vill, S., Fauchon, F., Baumert, B.G., Fariselli, L., Tzuk-Shina, T., Kortmann, R.D., Carrie, C., Ben Hassel, M., Kouri, M., Valeinis, E., van den Berge, D., Collette, S., Collette, L., Mueller, R.P.: Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(2), 134-41 (2011). doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.1655. Epub 2010 Nov 1. PubMed PMID: 21041710; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3058272Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patchell, R.A., Tibbs, P.A., Walsh, J.W., Dempsey, R.J., Maruyama, Y., Kryscio, R.J., Markesbery, W.R., Macdonald, J.S., Young, B.: A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain. N. Engl. J. Med. 322(8), 494–500 (1990). PubMed PMID: 2405271Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patchell, R.A., Tibbs, P.A., Regine, W.F., Dempsey, R.J., Mohiuddin, M., Kryscio, R.J., Markesbery, W.R., Foon, K.A., Young, B.: Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA 280(17), 1485–1489 (1998). PubMed PMID: 9809728Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mintz, A.H., Kestle, J., Rathbone, M.P., Gaspar, L., Hugenholtz, H., Fisher, B., Duncan, G., Skingley, P., Foster, G., Levine, M.: A randomized trial to assess the efficacy of surgery in addition to radiotherapy in patients with a single cerebral metastasis. Cancer 78(7), 1470–1476 (1996). PubMed PMID: 8839553Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vecht, C.J., Haaxma-Reiche, H., Noordijk, E.M., Padberg, G.W., Voormolen, J.H., Hoekstra, F.H., Tans, J.T., Lambooij, N., Metsaars, J.A., Wattendorff, A.R., et al.: Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy alone or combined with neurosurgery? Ann. Neurol. 33(6), 583–590 (1993). PubMed PMID: 8498838Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andrews, D.W., Scott, C.B., Sperduto, P.W., Flanders, A.E., Gaspar, L.E., Schell, M.C., Werner-Wasik, M., Demas, W., Ryu, J., Bahary, J.P., Souhami, L., Rotman, M., Mehta, M.P., Curran Jr, W.J.: Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 363(9422), 1665–1672 (2004). PubMed PMID: 15158627Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kondziolka, D., Patel, A., Lunsford, L.D., Kassam, A., Flickinger, J.C.: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with multiple brain metastases. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 45(2), 427–434 (1999). PubMed PMID: 10487566Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tu, S.W., Carini, S., Rector, A., Maccallum, P., Toujilov, I., Harris, S., Sim, I.: Ocre: an ontology of clinical research. In: 11th International Protege Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buchanan, B.G., Shortliffe, E.H.: Rule Based Expert Systems: The Mycin Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grando, M.A., Glasspool, D., Fox, J.: A formal approach to the analysis of clinical computer-interpretable guideline modeling languages. AIM 54(1), 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregating evidence about the positive and negative effects of treatments. AIM 56(3), 173–190 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A., Williams, M.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with clinical knowledge. IJAR 51(1), 1–22 (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrei Mocanu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xiuyi Fan
    • 2
  • Francesca Toni
    • 2
  • Matthew Williams
    • 2
  • Jiarong Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CraiovaCraiovaRomania
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations