AccScience Publishing / AIH / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AIH025470102
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

From engineering principles to healthcare practice: A hybrid reasoning framework for transparent clinical decision support

Nuno Soares Domingues1*
Show Less
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lisbon Polytechnic University of Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal
Received: 17 November 2025 | Revised: 16 December 2025 | Accepted: 22 December 2025 | Published online: 6 January 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are increasingly reliant on purely data-driven machine learning models, leading to significant challenges in clinical adoption due to their “black-box” nature, high risk of algorithmic bias, and inability to enforce hard safety constraints. This lack of transparency and clinical alignment poses major challenges for regulatory compliance and professional trust. This study proposes a novel hybrid artificial intelligence (AI) meta-model for CDSS design, which formally translates established engineering decision support paradigms into the clinical domain to create systems that are inherently safer and more explainable. The framework rigorously integrates: (i) Web Ontology Language 2 for formalizing medical concepts; (ii) a semantic web rule language rule base to serve as “clinical guardrails” for enforcing evidence-based guidelines and safety constraints; and (iii) a modular inference policy that intelligently matches decision problems with specific data-driven or probabilistic methods. A prototype was implemented, combining this explicit knowledge layer with modular inference engines and template-based explanations. Evaluation across two large-scale clinical tasks (oncology using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and intensive care using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV database) demonstrated superior performance over data-driven baselines. Specifically, the hybrid system achieved a 78% reduction in guideline-violation errors (reducing the contraindication rate from 18% to 6%) while maintaining high predictive accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 and 0.87, respectively). Furthermore, a clinician usability study confirmed that the transparent, knowledge-driven explanations resulted in significantly higher decision clarity (Likert rating of 6.2/7) and reduced cognitive load. The findings validate that this hybrid AI architecture represents a robust and transferable approach to designing clinically aligned, trustworthy, and explainable CDSS, directly addressing critical requirements for the responsible deployment of AI in healthcare.

Keywords
Clinical decision support
Hybrid artificial intelligence
Explainability
Patient safety
Healthcare informatics
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
  1. Musen MA, Middleton B, Greenes RA. Clinical decision-support systems. In: Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 795-840.

 

  1. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347-1358. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1814259

 

  1. Ghassemi M, Naumann T, Schulam P, Beam AL, Chen IY, Ranganath R. A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2020:191–200.

 

  1. Cysneiros A, Galvão T, Domingos N, Jorge P, Bento L. ARDS mortality prediction model using evolving clinical data and chest x ray imaging. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(Suppl 67):PA1210. doi: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.PA1210

 

  1. Saddler N, Harvey G, Jessa K, Rosenfield D. Clinical decision support systems: Opportunities in pediatric patient safety. Curr Treat Options Peds. 2020;1(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s40746-020-00206-3

 

  1. Xu F, Sepúlveda MJ, Jiang Z, et al. Effect of an artificial intelligence clinical decision support system on treatment decisions for complex breast cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:824-838. doi: 10.1200/CCI.20.00018

 

  1. Domingues NS. A hybrid decision support system using rule-based and AI methods: The OnCATs knowledge-based framework. Int J Med Inform. 2026;206:106144. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.106144

 

  1. Iadanza E, Mudura V, Melillo P, Gherardelli M. An automatic system supporting clinical decision for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Technol. 2020;10(2):487-498. doi: 10.1007/s12553-019-00312-9

 

  1. Fernandes M, Vieira SM, Leite F, Palos C, Finkelstein S, Sousa JMC. Clinical decision support systems for triage in the emergency department using intelligent systems: A review. Artif Intell Med. 2020;102:101762. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101762

 

  1. Domingues N. Using PBL in Engineering: Implementation Analyses. In: SEFI Annual Conference; 2011. 2011.

 

  1. Schaaf J, Sedlmayr M, Schaefer J, Storf H. Diagnosis of rare diseases: A scoping review of clinical decision support systems. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13023-020-01536-z

 

  1. Langer M, König CJ, Busch V. Changing the means of managerial work: Effects of automated decision support systems on personnel selection tasks. J Bus Psychol. 2021;36:751-769. doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09711-6

 

  1. Powell AC, Rogstad TL, Winchester DE, et al. Discordance in clinical recommendations regarding the use of imaging. Am J Med Qual. 2020;35(2):117-124. doi: 10.1177/1062860619851561

 

  1. Harmon MM. The Consolidation of the Los Angeles City and County Health Departments: A Case Study. [Dissertation]. University of Southern California; 1968.

 

  1. Licklider JCR. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Trans Hum Factors Electron. 1960;1(1):4-11. doi: 10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259

 

  1. Anthony RN. Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1965.

 

  1. Simon HA. The New Science of Management Decision. United States: Harper and Row; 1960.

 

  1. Rockart JF. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harv Bus Rev. 1979;57(2):81-93.

 

  1. Alter S. A taxonomy of decision support systems. Sloan Manage Rev. 1975;17(1):39-56.

 

  1. Keen PGW. Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Pearson: Addison-Wesley; 1978.

 

  1. Sprague RH. A framework for the development of decision support systems. MIS Q. 1980;4(4):1-26. doi: 10.2307/248957

 

  1. McKinsey and Company. Management Information Systems. United States: McKinsey and Company; 1968.

 

  1. Shim JP, Warkentin M, Courtney JF, Power DJ, Sharda R, Carlsson C. Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decis Support Syst. 2002;33(2):111-126. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00139-7

 

  1. Turban E, Aronson JE. Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. 6th ed. United States: Prentice Hall; 2001.

 

  1. Howard RA, Matheson JE. Influence diagrams. In: Howard RA, Matheson JE, editors. Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis. Vol 2. California: Strategic Decisions Group; 1984. p. 719-762.

 

  1. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8(3):338-353. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

 

  1. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. United States: John Wiley and Sons; 1976.

 

  1. Huele R. Neural networks as decision support systems: New tools for handling soil contaminations. In: Contaminated Soil’90. Netherlands: Springer; 1990. p. 515-519.

 

  1. Hertz DB. Risk analysis in capital investment. Harv Bus Rev. 1979;42(1):95-106.

 

  1. Sittig DF, Wright A, Coiera E, et al. Current challenges in health information technology-related patient safety. Health Informatics J. 2020;26(1):181-189. doi: 10.1177/1460458218814893

 

  1. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: A systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F

 

  1. Miller CC, Reardon MJ, Safi HJ. Risk Stratification: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

 

  1. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969-974. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969

 

  1. Arias E, Xu J, Kochanek KD. United States Life Tables, 2016. Vol. 68. United States: National Center for Health Statistics; 2018.

 

  1. Johnson AEW, Pollard TJ, Shen L, et al. MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database. Sci Data. 2016;3(1):160035. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.35

 

  1. Power DJ. Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers. United States: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2002.

 

  1. Barnett GO, Cimino JJ, Hupp JA, Hoffer EP. DXplain. An evolving diagnostic decision-support program. JAMA. 1987;258(1):67-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.258.1.67

 

  1. Wallace A. The Prodigy. Hertford: Crossroad Press; 2017.

 

  1. Weed LL. Problem-knowledge coupler. MD Comput. 1978;3(5):45-54.

 

  1. Kaiser K, Miksch S. Modeling treatment processes using information extraction. In: Yoshida H, Jain A, editors. Advanced Computational Intelligence Paradigms in Healthcare. Vol. 48. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 115-132.

 

  1. Adadi A, Berrada M. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access. 2018;6:52138-52160. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052

 

  1. Ganguly R, Singh D, Bose R. The next frontier of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in healthcare services: A study on PIMA diabetes dataset. Sci Temp. 2025;16(5):4165-4170. doi: 10.58414/SCIENTIFICTEMPER.2025.16.5.0

 

  1. Turban E, Aronson JE, Liang TP. Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. 6th ed. United States: Prentice Hall; 2007.

 

  1. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223-1238. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223
Share
Back to top
Artificial Intelligence in Health, Electronic ISSN: 3029-2387 Print ISSN: 3041-0894, Published by AccScience Publishing