skip to main content
10.1145/3148011.3154464acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Generating and Comparing Knowledge Graphs of Medical Processes Using pMineR

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 December 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Process mining focuses on extracting knowledge, under the form of models, from data generated and stored in information systems. The analysis of generated models can provide useful insights to domain experts. In addition, models of processes can be used to test if a considered process complies with some given specifications. For these reasons, process mining is gaining significant importance in the healthcare domain, where the complexity and flexibility of processes makes extremely hard to evaluate and assess how patients have been treated.

In this paper we describe how pMineR, an R library designed and developed for performing process mining in the medical domain, is currently exploited in Hospitals for supporting domain experts in the analysis of the extracted knowledge models. In its current release, pMineR can encode extracted processes under the form of directed graphs, which are easy to interpret and understand by experts of the domain. It also provides graphical comparison between different processes, allows to model the adherence to a given clinical guidelines and to estimate performance and the workload of the available resources in healthcare.

References

  1. W Aalst and et al. 2011. Process Mining Manifesto. In Business Process Management Workshops. 169--194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Italian Association of Medical Oncology AIOM. 2016. Lung Cancer treatment guidelines. (2016). http://www.aiom.it/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. C M Bishop. 2006. Mixture Models and EM. In Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (9th ed.). Springer, 450--455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Joos C. A. M. Buijs, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2012. On the Role of Fitness, Precision, Generalization and Simplicity in Process Discovery. In Proceedings of the Conference On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM. 305--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Dagliati, L. Sacchi, A. Zambelli, V. Tibollo, L. Pavesi, J.H. Holmes, and R. Bellazzi. 2017. Temporal electronic phenotyping by mining careflows of breast cancer patients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 66 (2017), 136--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Carlos Fernandez-Llatas, Aroa Lizondo, Eduardo Monton, Jose-Miguel Benedi, and Vicente Traver. 2015. Process mining methodology for health process tracking using real-time indoor location systems. Sensors 15, 12 (2015), 29821--29840.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Roberto Gatta, Jacopo Lenkowicz, Mauro Vallati, Eric Rojas, Andrea Damiani, Lucia Sacchi, Berardino De Bari, Arianna Dagliati, Carlos Fernandez-Llatas, Matteo Montesi, Antonio Marchetti, Maurizio Castellano, and Vincenzo Valentini. 2017. pMineR: An Innovative R Library for Performing Process Mining in Medicine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L Kaufman and P J Rousseeuw. 1987. Clustering by Means of Medoids. In Statistical Data Analysis based on the L1 Norm. 405--416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Angelina Prima Kurniati, Owen Johnson, David Hogg, and Geoff Hall. 2016. Process mining in oncology: A literature review. In Information Communication and Management (ICICM), International Conference on. IEEE, 291--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ronny Mans, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Rob J. B. Vanwersch. 2015. Process Mining in Healthcare - Evaluating and Exploiting Operational Healthcare Processes. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. S. Mans, M. H. Schonenberg, Minseok Song, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Piet J. M. Bakker. 2008. Process Mining in Healthcare - A Case Study. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Health Informatics, HEALTHINF. 118--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. F. Pacini, M. Schlumberger, H. Dralle, R. Elisei, J. W. Smit, and W. Wiersinga. 2006. European consensus for the management of patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma of the follicular epithelium. European Thyroid Cancer Taskforce. Eur J Endocrinol 154, 6 (2006), 787--803.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. E Rojas, J Munoz-Gama, M Sepúlveda, and D Capurro. 2016. Process mining in healthcare: A literature review. J Biomed Inform. 61 (2016), 224--s36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Wil M. P. van der Aalst, Ton Weijters, and Laura Maruster. 2004. Workflow Mining: Discovering Process Models from Event Logs. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 16, 9 (2004), 1128--1142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Generating and Comparing Knowledge Graphs of Medical Processes Using pMineR

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          K-CAP '17: Proceedings of the 9th Knowledge Capture Conference
          December 2017
          271 pages
          ISBN:9781450355537
          DOI:10.1145/3148011

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 December 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader