## 5 Model Verification and Comparative Analysis
### Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison

Table 13: Qualitative comparison of five methods under uncertainty. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **No** & **PSY** & **SCM** & **GNW** & **AR** & **DIKWP** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Interpretability} & \multirow{2}{*}{Tom} & pain(lower back) & \multirow{2}{*}{} & fatigue, & fatigue, & \multirow{2}{*}{6 Rules} & Input(\(DIKWP_{CC}\)) \\  & & \(\rightarrow\) pressure & pain(lower back), & pain(lower back) & & & Output(expression) \\  & & diagnosis & \(\rightarrow\) GNW & & & & \\  & & hold(lower back) & exercise, & & information & & \\  & & \(\rightarrow\) disease & & weight, & \(\rightarrow\) GNW & 11 Rules & Output(question) \\  & & & ask(doctor) & exercise, & & question & \\  & & \(\rightarrow\) disease & & fever, & \(\rightarrow\) GNW & 6 Rules & Input(\(DIKWP_{CC}\)) \\  & & & \(\rightarrow\) disease & weight, & & \(\rightarrow\) GNW & 6 Output(answer) \\  & & & depend(/Gust) & & depend(/datique, & & \\  & & & pain(lower back), & & Propend & & & \\  & & & diagnosis & & Workspaces & depend(6 Rules) & N/A \\  & & & depend(exercise, & & & \\ Dependence & \(D_{C}\) & depend(PSY) & fever, & & Workspaces & depend (11 Rules) & N/A \\  & & & weight, & \(\rightarrow\) ) & & \\  & & & depend/exercise, & & Propend & & & & \\  & & & depend(failure, & & & \\  & & Tom & depend(PSY) & fever, & & Workspaces & depend (6 Rules) & N/A \\  & & & weight, & \(\rightarrow\) ) & & \\  & & & & Where & & & \\  & & & Motivation & Terms & Global Search & 6 Rules & Subjective \\ Depth of & \(D_{C}\) & Subconscious & Five & Global & & Subjective and \\  & & Motivation & Terms & Search & & Objective \\  & & & Subconscious & Five Terms & Global Search & 6 Rules & Subjective and \\  & & & Motivation & Five Terms & Global Search & 6 Rules & Objective \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Uncertainty issues in multi-docor cases with the same patient. \(NumU_{PR\_SCM}\), \(NumU_{CS\_SCM}\), \(NumU_{CP\_SCM}\) correspond to the number of issues related to \(U_{CS}\), \(U_{CP}\), and \(U_{PR}\), respectively. In our proposed DIKWP doctor-patient interaction semantic prototype for addressing uncertainty issues, the purpose-driven inputs and outputs are set as follows:  
\[\{OP(n,r)\}_{OUTPUT}=PUP(\{IN(m,i)\}_{INPUT}) \tag{38}\]  
where OP(n, r) output function, n is the number of outputs, and r is the value of outputs. IN(m, i) is the input function, m is the number of inputs, and i is the value of inputs. The following is an illustration of the doctor's purpose of \"ordering tests\":  
\[ \begin{split}& PUP:what(test)\\ & doctor(DAT),\,prescribes(INF),what(INF),tests(DAT),items(DAT) \\ &(\{IN(5,\{doctor,prescribe,what,tests,items\})\}_{INPUT})\\ & Pathway:<pain(lower\,back)>_{INF}+_{DIKWP}<fatigue>_{INF}\\ &+_{DIKWP}<pain(lower\,back)\wedge fatigue\to stones>_{ KNG}\\ &+_{DIKWP}<pain(lower\,back)\wedge fatigue\to infections>_{ KNG}\\ &+_{DIKWP}<what(test)>_{PUP}\rightarrow\\ &<CT\wedge blood\,tests>_{DAT}\\ & OUTPUT:CT,blood\,tests\\ &(\{OP(2,\{CT,blood\,tests\})\}_{OUTPUT})\end{split}  \tag{39}\]  
Figure 12: Comparison of text coverage rates by the five methods.