Evaluation of a Semantic Web Application for Collaborative Knowledge Building in the Dementia Domain

  • Helena Lindgren
  • Peter Winnberg
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 69)


This paper presents the results from a qualitative evaluation study of the semantic web application ACKTUS-dementia, developed for the purpose of supporting a distributed collaborative knowledge engineering process. The main purpose of the study was to investigate whether the functionalities used for the purpose are intuitive and to what extent expert physicians are able to use the system for the purpose intended. The experts were observed when executing tasks and interviews were conducted to investigate issues and attitudes concerning integrating contextual knowledge to enrich the knowledge in the application. Results indicate that the system fulfils its purpose and is useful for capturing sources of possible misinterpretations, possible alternative interpretations and ambiguities in the domain knowledge. There was also an interest expressed to extend the system to include contextual knowledge for the international collegiums to share as a continuing medical education apart from supporting patient-centric assessments.


Evaluation clinical practice guidelines clinical decision support system personalization knowledge modeling semantic web dementia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van Bemmel, J., Musen, M.: Handbook of Medical Informatics. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seyfang, A., Miksch, S., Marcos, M., Wittenberg, J., Polo-Conde, C., Rosenbrand, K.: Bridging the Gap between Informal and Formal Guideline Representations. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) ECAI 2006. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 447–451. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shalom, E., Shahar, Y., Taieb-Maimon, M., Bar, G., Martins, S.B., Young, O., Vaszar, L., Liel, Y., Yarkoni, A., Goldstein, M.K., Leibowitz, A., Marom, T., Lunenfeld, E.: Can Physicians Structure Clinical Guidelines? Experiments with a Mark-Up-Process Methodology. In: Riaño, D. (ed.) K4HelP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5626, pp. 67–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eccher, C., Ferro, A., Seyfang, A., Rospocher, M., Miksch, S.: Modeling Clinical Protocols Using Semantic MediaWiki: The Case of the Oncocure Project. In: Riaño, D. (ed.) K4HelP 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5626, pp. 42–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bardram, J.E., Hansen, T.R.: Why the Plan Doesn’t Hold - a Study of Situated Planning, Articulation and Coordination Work in a Surgical Ward. In: The 2010 ACM Conference on CSCW, New York, NY, USA, pp. 331–340 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindgren, H.: Decision Support System Supporting Clinical Reasoning Process – an Evaluation Study in Dementia Care. Stud. Health. Technol. Inform. 136, 315–320 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindgren, H.: Towards personalized decision support in the dementia domain based on clinical practice guidelines (in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindgren, H.: Conceptual Model of Activity as Tool for Developing a Dementia Care Support System. In: Ackerman, M., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Simone, C., Wulf, V. (eds.) KMIA 2008. IFIP, vol. 270, pp. 97–109. Springer, Boston (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindgren, H., Eklund, P.: Differential diagnosis of dementia in an argumentation framework. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 17(4), 387–394 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindgren, H.: Towards Using Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions for Supporting Diagnostic Reasoning in the Dementia Domain. In: Computational Models of Natural Arguments (CMNA 2009), Pasadena, CA, pp. 10–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chesnevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an Argument Interchange Format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Psychiatric Association.: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric Association (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winblad, B., Palmer, K., Kivipelto, M., Jelic, V., Fratiglioni, L., Wahlund, L.O., Nordberg, A., Bäckman, L., Albert, M., Almkvist, O., Arai, H., Basun, H., Blennow, K., de Leon, M., DeCarli, C., Erkinjuntti, T., Giacobini, E., Graff, C., Hardy, J., Jack, C., Jorm, A., Ritchie, K., van Duijn, C., Visser, P., Petersen, R.C.: Mild cognitive impairment – beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Internal Medicine 256, 240–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Lindgren
    • 1
  • Peter Winnberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations