A Hybrid AI and Rule-Based Decision Support System for Disease Diagnosis and Management Using Labs

Muhammad Hammad Maqsood, Mubashir Sajid, Khubaib Ahmed, Muhammad Usamah Shahid, Muddassar Farooq · Mar 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

This research paper outlines the development and implementation of a novel Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) that integrates AI predictive modeling with medical knowledge bases. It utilizes the quantifiable information elements in lab results for inferring likely diagnoses a patient might have. Subsequently, suggesting investigations to confirm the likely diagnoses -- an assistive tool for physicians. The system fuses knowledge contained in a rule-base expert system with inferences of data driven predictors based on the features in labs. The data for 593,055 patients was collected from 547 primary care centers across the US to model our decision support system and derive Real-Word Evidence (RWE) to make it relevant for a large demographic of patients. Our Rule-Base comprises clinically validated rules, modeling 59 health conditions that can directly confirm one or more of diseases and assign ICD-10 codes to them. The Likely Diagnosis system uses multi-class classification, covering 37 ICD-10 codes, which are grouped together into 11 categories based on the labs that physicians prescribe to confirm the diagnosis. This research offers a novel system that assists a physician by utilizing medical profile of a patient and routine lab investigations to predict a group of likely diseases and then confirm them, coupled with providing explanations for inferences, thereby assisting physicians to reduce misdiagnosis of patients in clinical decision-making.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.