IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i3p250-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Graphical Decision-Theoretic Model for Neonatal Jaundice

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel Gómez

    (Decision Analayis and Statistics Group, School of Computer Science, Technical University of Madrid, Spain)

  • Concha Bielza

    (Decision Analayis and Statistics Group, School of Computer Science, Technical University of Madrid, Spain, mcbielza@fi.upm.es)

  • Juan A. Fernández del Pozo

    (Decision Analayis and Statistics Group, School of Computer Science, Technical University of Madrid, Spain)

  • Sixto Ríos-Insua

    (Decision Analayis and Statistics Group, School of Computer Science, Technical University of Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Background. Neonatal jaundice is treated daily at all hospitals. However, the routine, urgency, and case load of most doctors stop them from carefully analyzing all the factors that they would like to (and should) take into account. This article develops a complex decision support system for neonatal jaundice management. Methods. The problem is represented by means of an influence diagram, including admission and treatment decisions. The corresponding uncertainty model is built with the aid of both historical data and subjective judgments. Parents and doctors were interviewed to elicit a multiattribute utility function. The decision analysis cycle is completed with sensitivity analyses and explanations of the results. Results. The construction and use of this decision support system for jaundice management have induced a profound change in daily medical practice, avoiding aggressive treatments—there have been no exchange transfusions in the past 3 years—and reducing the lengths of stay at the hospital. More information is now taken into account to decide on treatments. Interestingly, after embarking on this modeling effort, physicians came to view jaundice as a much more difficult problem than they had initially thought. Comparisons between real cases and system proposals revealed that treatments by nonexpert doctors tend to be longer than what expert doctors would administer. Conclusion. The system is especially designed to help neonatologists in situations in which their lack of experience may lead to unnecessary treatments. Different points of view from several expert doctors and, more interestingly, from parents are taken into account. This knowledge gives a broader picture of the medical problem— incorporating new action criteria, new agents to intervene, more uncertainty variables—to get an insight into the suitability of each therapeutic decision for each patient situation. The benefits gained and the usefulness perceived by neonatologists are worth the increased and time-consuming effort of developing this complex system. Although specially designed for a specific hospital and for neonatal jaundice management, it can be easily adapted to other hospitals and problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel Gómez & Concha Bielza & Juan A. Fernández del Pozo & Sixto Ríos-Insua, 2007. "A Graphical Decision-Theoretic Model for Neonatal Jaundice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 250-265, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:250-265
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07300605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07300605
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07300605?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank A. Sonnenberg & C. Greg Hagerty & Casimir A. Kulikowski, 1994. "An Architecture for Knowledge-based Construction of Decision Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 27-39, February.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bielza, Concha & Gómez, Manuel & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2011. "A review of representation issues and modeling challenges with influence diagrams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 227-241, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    2. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    3. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    4. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    5. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    6. Perrels, Adriaan & Molarius, Riitta & Porthin, Markus & Rosqvist, Tony, 2008. "Testing a Flood Protection Case by Means of a Group Decision Support System," Discussion Papers 449, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Ahrens, Heinz & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2007. "Integrating Ecological And Economic Aspects In Land Use Concepts: Some Conclusions From A Regional Land Use Concept For Bayerisches Donauried," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7986, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    9. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    10. Lupo, Toni, 2015. "Fuzzy ServPerf model combined with ELECTRE III to comparatively evaluate service quality of international airports in Sicily," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 249-259.
    11. Guo, Mengzhuo & Zhang, Qingpeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Chen, Frank Youhua & Zeng, Daniel Dajun, 2021. "A hybrid machine learning framework for analyzing human decision-making through learning preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    13. Viral Gupta & P. K. Kapur & Deepak Kumar, 2019. "Prioritizing and Optimizing Disaster Recovery Solution using Analytic Network Process and Multi Attribute Utility Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 171-207, January.
    14. Florian Methling & Rüdiger Nitzsch, 2019. "Thematic portfolio optimization: challenging the core satellite approach," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 33(2), pages 133-154, June.
    15. Rogerson, Ellen C. & Lambert, James H., 2012. "Prioritizing risks via several expert perspectives with application to runway safety," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 22-34.
    16. Figueira, Jose & Roy, Bernard, 2002. "Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 317-326, June.
    17. P. S. Nagpaul & Santanu Roy, 2003. "Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 383-402, March.
    18. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    19. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:250-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.