pages 66-68

Evaluation of the Model

HOMER R. WARNER 1
Dean K Sorenson 2
Omar Bouhaddou 1
Publication typeBook Chapter
Publication date1997-01-01
SJR
CiteScore
Impact factor
ISSN14311909
Abstract
In the evaluation phase, the expert system is tested by comparing the differential diagnosis at each stage of the patient workup with the expert’s opinion and determining where the knowledge base might be revised to improve performance. This process is carried out first. If the system appears to be overconfident about a particular diagnosis (i.e., assigns a higher probability to that diagnosis than the expert thinks appropriate), suspicion is raised that the false positive rate assigned to some data item already entered for the patient being diagnosed is too low. Another explanation might be that highly associated findings are being treated as independent; i.e., they need to be represented as an “or” group or built into a cluster.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
0
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
WARNER H. R., Sorenson D. K., Bouhaddou O. Evaluation of the Model // Nursing and Computers. 1997. pp. 66-68.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
WARNER H. R., Sorenson D. K., Bouhaddou O. Evaluation of the Model // Nursing and Computers. 1997. pp. 66-68.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - GENERIC
DO - 10.1007/978-1-4612-1822-7_6
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1822-7_6
TI - Evaluation of the Model
T2 - Nursing and Computers
AU - WARNER, HOMER R.
AU - Sorenson, Dean K
AU - Bouhaddou, Omar
PY - 1997
DA - 1997/01/01
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 66-68
SN - 1431-1909
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@incollection{1997_WARNER,
author = {HOMER R. WARNER and Dean K Sorenson and Omar Bouhaddou},
title = {Evaluation of the Model},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
year = {1997},
pages = {66--68},
month = {jan}
}