ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
Medical expert system for low back pain management: design issues and conflict resolution with Bayesian network.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of machine learning and deep learning in musculoskeletal medicine: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Transformer encoder with multiscale deep learning for pain classification using physiological signals.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The paper focuses on the development of a reliable medical expert system for diagnosis of low back pain (LBP) by proposing an efficient frame-based knowledge representation scheme and a suitable resolution logic with conflicts in outcomes being resolved using Bayesian network. Considering that LBP is classified into many diseases based on different pain generators, the proposed methodology infers non-conflicting LBP diseases sorted according to their chances of occurrence. A satisfactory clinical efficacy (average relative error - 0.09, recall 74.44%, precision 76.67%, accuracy 71.11%, and F1-score 73.88%) of the proposed methodology has been found after validating the design with empirically selected thirty LBP patient cases. Constraining that an inferred disease having chance of occurrence, prior to pathological investigations, below 0.75 (as set by four pain specialists) is not accepted clinically; the design can correctly identify, on average, 74.44% of actual diagnosis; and 76.67% of inferred diagnosis is included in actual diagnosis. With the predicted chance of occurrence being lower than 0.75 by a fraction of 0.09 on average, the proposed design performs well for 73.88% cases detecting 71.11% inferred outcomes as accurate. The design offers homogeneity to the actual outcomes, with the chi-squared static being calculated as 11.08 having 12 as degree of freedom. Graphical abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32894421What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.