Picture of virus

Open Access research that helps to deliver "better medicines"...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), a major research centre in Scotland and amongst the UK's top schools of pharmacy.

Research at SIPBS includes the "New medicines", "Better medicines" and "Better use of medicines" research groups. Together their research explores multidisciplinary approaches to improve understanding of fundamental bioscience and identify novel therapeutic targets with the aim of developing therapeutic interventions, investigation of the development and manufacture of drug substances and products, and harnessing Scotland's rich health informatics datasets to inform stratified medicine approaches and investigate the impact of public health interventions.

Explore Open Access research by SIPBS. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Comparing diagnoses from expert systems and human experts

Seidel, M. and Breslin, C. and Christley, R.M. and Gettinby, G. and Reid, S.W.J. and Revie, C.W. (2003) Comparing diagnoses from expert systems and human experts. Agricultural Systems, 76 (2). pp. 527-538. ISSN 0308-521X

Full text not available in this repository. Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

Abstract

This paper discusses a comparison of one heuristic and two Bayesian belief network based expert systems used to aid veterinarians in the process of differential diagnoses of equine diseases where coughing is the presenting clinical sign. Each implementation infers the likelihood of the presence of a number of diseases based on information on the presence or absence of certain clinical signs. The Bayesian belief network approaches are similar except that one includes the use of prior information in the form of disease prevalence estimates. Both are implemented using the Hugin software package. The three approaches were compared using test cases and the lists of resulting diagnoses were examined for agreement using a measure of concordance. The results indicated a difference between the heuristic approach which used the rule-based scoring mechanism and the Bayesian systems. There was, however, little difference between the diagnoses produced by the two Bayesian implementations, indicating that the incorporation of prevalence data makes little difference in diagnostic systems of this type. The findings were also compared with those of clinical experts. The analysis indicated that clinicians were not always in agreement. Moreover, using the same set of test cases the experts were more in agreement with the Bayesian approaches than with the heuristic approach.