Scoring systems such as the Glasgow-Coma scale used to assess consciousness AusDrisk to assess the risk of diabetes, are prevalent in clinical practice. Scoring systems typically include relevant variables with ordinal values where each value is assigned a weight. Weights for selected values are summed and compared to thresholds for health care professionals to rapidly generate a score. Scoring systems are prevalent in clinical practice because they are easy and quick to use. However, most scoring systems comprise many variables and require some time to calculate an final score. Further, expensive population-wide studies are required to validate a scoring system. In this article, we present a new approach for the generation of a scoring system. The approach uses a search procedure invoking iterative decision tree induction to identify a suite of scoring rules, each of which requires values on only two variables. Twelve scoring rules were discovered using the approach, from an Australian screening program for the assessment of Type 2 Diabetes risk. However, classifications from the 12 rules can conflict. In this paper we argue that a simple rule preference relation is sufficient for the resolution of rule conflicts.
The CRISP-DM methodology is commonly used in data analytics exercises within an organisation to provide system and structure to data mining processes. However, in providing a rigorous framework, CRISP-DM overlooks two facets of data analytics in organisational contexts; data mining exercises are far more agile and subject to change than presumed in CRISP-DM and central decisions regarding the interpretation of patterns discovered and the direction of analytics exercises are typically not made by individuals but by committees or groups within an organisation. The current study provides a case study of data mining in a hospital setting and suggests how the agile nature of an analytics exercise and the group reasoning inherent in key decisions can be accommodated within a CRISP-DM methodology.