摘要翻译：
对临床指南质量的要求可以用图式来表示，图式是从溯因诊断理论中借用来的，使用时序逻辑来对指南中所表达的面向时间的方面进行建模。以前，我们已经证明了这些需求可以使用交互式定理证明技术来验证。在本文中，我们研究了如何将这种方法映射到基于分辨率的定理证明器Otter和搜索一阶陈述有限模型的补充程序MACE的设施上。结果表明，检验准则质量所需的推理可以映射到这种全自动的定理证明设备上。用这种方法对一个关于糖尿病2的实际指南的医疗质量进行了调查。
---
英文标题：
《Checking the Quality of Clinical Guidelines using Automated Reasoning
  Tools》
---
作者：
Arjen Hommersom, Peter J.F. Lucas, and Patrick van Bommel
---
最新提交年份：
2008
---
分类信息：

一级分类：Computer Science        计算机科学
二级分类：Artificial Intelligence        人工智能
分类描述：Covers all areas of AI except Vision, Robotics, Machine Learning, Multiagent Systems, and Computation and Language (Natural Language Processing), which have separate subject areas. In particular, includes Expert Systems, Theorem Proving (although this may overlap with Logic in Computer Science), Knowledge Representation, Planning, and Uncertainty in AI. Roughly includes material in ACM Subject Classes I.2.0, I.2.1, I.2.3, I.2.4, I.2.8, and I.2.11.
涵盖了人工智能的所有领域，除了视觉、机器人、机器学习、多智能体系统以及计算和语言（自然语言处理），这些领域有独立的学科领域。特别地，包括专家系统，定理证明（尽管这可能与计算机科学中的逻辑重叠），知识表示，规划，和人工智能中的不确定性。大致包括ACM学科类I.2.0、I.2.1、I.2.3、I.2.4、I.2.8和I.2.11中的材料。
--
一级分类：Computer Science        计算机科学
二级分类：Logic in Computer Science        计算机科学中的逻辑
分类描述：Covers all aspects of logic in computer science, including finite model theory, logics of programs, modal logic, and program verification. Programming language semantics should have Programming Languages as the primary subject area. Roughly includes material in ACM Subject Classes D.2.4, F.3.1, F.4.0, F.4.1, and F.4.2; some material in F.4.3 (formal languages) may also be appropriate here, although Computational Complexity is typically the more appropriate subject area.
涵盖计算机科学中逻辑的所有方面，包括有限模型理论，程序逻辑，模态逻辑和程序验证。程序设计语言语义学应该把程序设计语言作为主要的学科领域。大致包括ACM学科类D.2.4、F.3.1、F.4.0、F.4.1和F.4.2中的材料；F.4.3（形式语言）中的一些材料在这里也可能是合适的，尽管计算复杂性通常是更合适的主题领域。
--
一级分类：Computer Science        计算机科学
二级分类：Symbolic Computation        符号计算
分类描述：Roughly includes material in ACM Subject Class I.1.
大致包括ACM学科第一类1的材料。
--

---
英文摘要：
  Requirements about the quality of clinical guidelines can be represented by schemata borrowed from the theory of abductive diagnosis, using temporal logic to model the time-oriented aspects expressed in a guideline. Previously, we have shown that these requirements can be verified using interactive theorem proving techniques. In this paper, we investigate how this approach can be mapped to the facilities of a resolution-based theorem prover, Otter, and a complementary program that searches for finite models of first-order statements, Mace. It is shown that the reasoning required for checking the quality of a guideline can be mapped to such fully automated theorem-proving facilities. The medical quality of an actual guideline concerning diabetes mellitus 2 is investigated in this way.
---
PDF链接：
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0250