Next Generation Hybrid Intelligent Medical Diagnosis Systems

  • Sabri Arik
  • Laszlo Barna Iantovics
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10636)


Many medical diagnosis problems (MDPs) are difficult to be solved by physicians. Frequently, the difficult MDPs solving by physicians require the assistance of the medical computing systems, which many times should be intelligent. Many papers presented in the specialized literature prove, that the intelligence of a system (frequently agent-based) can offer advantages in the MDPs solving versus a system that does not have such intelligence. Cooperative hybrid (human-machine) medical diagnosis systems seem to be well suited for the solving of many difficult MDPs. A difficult aspect in the design of such systems consists in the establishment of how to combine in an optimal way the humans and intelligent systems interoperation in order to solve the undertaken problems in the most efficient way. With this purpose, a novel hybrid medical system, called Intelligent Medical Hybrid System (IntHybMediSys) is proposed in this paper, a system which combines efficiently the humans and computing systems advantages in the problem-solving. We give a definition to the Difficult Medical Diagnosis Problem Solving Intelligence. IntHybMediSys is a highly complex hybrid system composed of physicians and intelligent agents that can interoperate intelligently in different points of decision in order to solve efficiently very difficult medical diagnosis problems. IntHybMediSys is able to handle emergent information that rise during the medical problems solving that allows the precise establishment of the most efficient contributor (a physician or an artificial agent) at each contribution during a problem-solving. This kind of problem-solving has as an effect the increase of accuracy of the elaborated diagnostic.


Intelligent hybrid medical system Machine intelligence Difficult medical diagnosis problem 



Laszlo Barna Iantovics acknowledge the support of the COROFLOW project PN-III-P2-2.1-BG-2016-0343, Contract: 114BG/2016.


  1. 1.
    Giovacchini, G., Giovannini, E., Leoncini, R., Riondato, M., Ciarmiello, A.: PET and PET/CT with radiolabeled choline in prostate cancer: a critical reappraisal of 20 years of clinical studies. Eur. J. Nuclear Med. Mol. Imaging 44(10), 1751–1776 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weidmann, A.K., Al-Niaimi, F., Lyon, C.C.: Correction of skin contour defects in leaking stomas by filler injection: a novel approach for a difficult clinical problem. Dermatol. Ther. 4(2), 271–279 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iantovics, L.B., Chira, C., Dumitrescu, D.: Principles of the Intelligent Agents. Casa Cartii de Stiinta Press, Cluj-Napoca (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Imam, I.F.: Intelligent Adaptive Agents. Papers from the 1996 AAAI Workshop. Technical Report WS-96-04, AAAI Press, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iantovics, L.B.: Agent-based medical diagnosis systems. Comput. Inform. 27(4), 593–625 (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nouira, K., Trabelsi, A.: Intelligent monitoring system for intensive care units. J. Med. Syst. 36(4), 2309–2318 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shirabad, J.S., Wilk, S., Michalowski, W., Farion, K.: Implementing an integrative multi-agent clinical decision support system with open source software. J. Med. Syst. 36(1), 123–137 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller, K., Mansingh, G.: OptiPres: a distributed mobile agent decision support system for optimal patient drug prescription. Inform. Syst. Front. 19(1), 129–148 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haupt, F., Berding, G., Namazian, A., Wilke, F., Böker, A., Merseburger, A., Geworski, L., Kuczyk, M.A., Bengel, F.M., Peters, I.: Expert system for bone scan interpretation improves progression assessment in bone metastatic prostate cancer. Adv. Ther. 34(4), 986–994 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kar, S., Majumder, D.D.: A mathematical theory of shape and neuro-fuzzy methodology-based diagnostic analysis: a comparative study on early detection and treatment planning of brain cancer. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 22(4), 667–681 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Qaysi, I., Unland, R., Weihs, C., Branki, C.: Medical diagnosis decision support HMAS under uncertainty HMDS. Stud. Comput. Intell. 326, 67–94 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eubanks, D.L., Murphy, S.T., Mumford, M.D.: Intuition as an influence on creative problem-solving: the effects of intuition, positive affect, and training. Creativity Res. J. 22(2), 170–184 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pelaccia, T., Tardif, J., Triby, E., Charlin, B.: An analysis of clinical reasoning through a recent and comprehensive approach: the dual-process theory. Med. Educ. Online 16(1), 5890 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCarthy, J.: Programs with common sense, In. Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, Her Majesty’s Stationery Oce, London (1959)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, E., Marcus, G.: Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence. Commun. ACM 58(9), 92–103 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keravnou, E.T., Dams, F., Washbrook, J., Dawood, R.M., Hall, C.M., Shaw, D.: Background knowledge in diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med. 4(4), 263–279 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, R.G.: The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans. Comput. 29(12), 1104–1113 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, R., Smith, R.G.: Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artif. Intell. 20, 63–109 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alotaibi, S.J.: ICT classroom LMSs: examining the various components affecting the acceptance of college students in the use of blackboard systems. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 498, 523–532 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao, H., Ma, W., Sun, B.: A novel decision making approach based on intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 8(4), 1107–1117 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jin, F., Ni, Z., Pei, L., Chen, H., Li, Y., Zhu, X., Ni, L.: A decision support model for group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy linguistic preferences relations. Neural Comput. Appl., 1–22 (2017). Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iantovics, L.B.: Intelligent computations for complex problem solving. In: Hluchý, L., Kurdel, P., Sebestyénová, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Grid Computing for Complex Problems (GCCP 2011), pp. 27–36 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iantovics, L.B., Kovacs, L., Fekete, G.L.: Next generation university library information systems based on cooperative learning. New Rev. Inform. Networking 21(2), 101–116 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, New Series, vol. 59(236), pp. 433–460. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association (1950)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuppusamy, K.S., Aghila, G.: HuMan: an accessible, polymorphic and personalized CAPTCHA interface with preemption feature tailored for persons with visual impairments. Univ. Access Inform. Soc., 1–24 (2017).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thwaites, A., Soltan, A., Wieser, E., Nimmo-Smith, I.: The difficult legacy of Turing’s wager. J. Comput. Neurosci. 43(1), 1–4 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luger, G.F., Chakrabarti, C.: From Alan Turing to modern AI: practical solutions and an implicit epistemic stance. AI Soc. 32(3), 321–338 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Petru Maior UniversityTirgu MuresRomania

Personalised recommendations