A framework for classifying decision support systems.

Ida Sim; Amy Berlin

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14728243

A framework for classifying decision support systems.

Ida Sim·Amy Berlin

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computer-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) vary greatly in design and function. A taxonomy for classifying CDSS structure and function would help efforts to describe and understand the variety of CDSSs in the literature, and to explore predictors of CDSS effectiveness and generalizability. OBJECTIVE: To define and test a taxonomy for characterizing the contextual, technical, and workflow features of CDSSs. METHODS: We retrieved and analyzed 150 English language articles published between 1975 and 2002 that described computer systems designed to assist physicians and/or patients with clinical decision making. We identified aspects of CDSS structure or function and iterated our taxonomy until additional article reviews did not result in any new descriptors or taxonomic modifications. RESULTS: Our taxonomy comprises 95 descriptors along 24 descriptive axes. These axes are in 5 categories: Context, Knowledge and Data Source, Decision Support, Information Delivery, and Workflow. The axes had an average of 3.96 coded choices each. 75% of the descriptors had an inter-rater agreement kappa of greater than 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: We have defined and tested a comprehensive, multi-faceted taxonomy of CDSSs that shows promising reliability for classifying CDSSs reported in the literature.

Explore related subjects

Classification Decision Support Systems, Clinical Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ida Sim, Amy Berlin. 2003. A framework for classifying decision support systems.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14728243/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Automated species identification: why not?

Where possible, automation has been a common response of humankind to many activities that have to be repeated numerous times. The routine identification of specimens of previously described species has many of the characteristics of other activities that have been automated, and poses a major constraint on studies in many areas of both pure and applied biology. In this paper, we consider some of the reasons why automated species identification has not become widely employed, and whether it is a realistic option, addressing the notions that it is too difficult, too threatening, too different or too costly. Although recognizing that there are some very real technical obstacles yet to be overcome, we argue that progress in the development of automated species identification is extremely encouraging that such an approach has the potential to make a valuable contribution to reducing the burden of routine identifications. Vision and enterprise are perhaps more limiting at present than practical constraints on what might possibly be achieved.

Classification↗

PubMed2004

Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature.

Nomenclature, far from being a dry dusty subject, is today more relevant than ever before. Researchers into genomics are discovering again the need for systems of nomenclature-names are what we use to communicate about organisms, and by extension the rest of their biology. Here, we briefly outline the history of the published international codes of nomenclature, tracing them from the time of Linnaeus in the eighteenth century to the present day. We then outline some of what we feel are the major challenges that face the codes in the twenty-first century; focusing primarily on publication, priority, typification and the role of science in the naming of organisms. We conclude that the codes are essential for taxonomists in the pursuance of their science, and that the democratic nature of decision-making in the regulation of the rules of nomenclature, though sometimes perceived as a potential weakness, is in fact one of its great strengths.

Classification↗

PubMed2004

Unraveling the phylogeny of polygrammoid ferns (Polypodiaceae and Grammitidaceae): exploring aspects of the diversification of epiphytic plants.

We explore the phylogeny of the polygrammoid ferns using nucleotide sequences derived from three plastid loci for each of 98 selected species. Our analyses recovered four major monophyletic lineages: the loxogrammoids, two clades consisting of taxa restricted to the Old World, and a largely neotropical clade that also includes the pantropical Grammitidaceae. The loxogrammoid lineage diverges first and is sister to a large clade comprising the three remaining species-rich lineages. One paleotropical clade includes the drynarioid and selligueoid ferns, whereas the second paleotropical clade includes the platycerioids, lepisoroids, microsoroids, and their relatives. The grammitids nest within the neotropical clade, although the sister taxon of this circum-tropic, epiphytic group remains ambiguous. Microsorum and Polypodium, as traditionally defined, were recovered as polyphyletic. The relatively short branch lengths of the deepest clades contrast with the long branch lengths leading to the terminal groups. This suggests that the polygrammoid ferns arose through an old, rapid radiation. Our analysis also reveals that the rate of substitution in the grammitids is remarkably higher relative to other polygrammoids. Disparities in substitution rate may be correlated with one or more features characterizing grammitids, including species richness, chlorophyllous spores, and an extended gametophytic phase.

Classification↗