Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35879987›Full record

ArticleChemical product and process modeling2022

Pareto domain: an invaluable source of process information.

Geraldine Cáceres Sepúlveda, Silvia Ochoa, Jules Thibault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical product and process modeling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Geraldine Cáceres SepúlvedaDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Silvia OchoaSIDCOP Research Group-Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Jules ThibaultDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the highly competitive market and increasingly stringent environmental regulations, it is paramount to operate chemical processes at their optimal point. In a typical process, there are usually many process variables (decision variables) that need to be selected in order to achieve a set of optimal objectives for which the process will be considered to operate optimally. Because some of the objectives are often contradictory, Multi-objective optimization (MOO) can be used to find a suitable trade-off among all objectives that will satisfy the decision maker. The first step is to circumscribe a well-defined Pareto domain, corresponding to the portion of the solution domain comprised of a large number of non-dominated solutions. The second step is to rank all Pareto-optimal solutions based on some preferences of an expert of the process, this step being performed using visualization tools and/or a ranking algorithm. The last step is to implement the best solution to operate the process optimally. In this paper, after reviewing the main methods to solve MOO problems and to select the best Pareto-optimal solution, four simple MOO problems will be solved to clearly demonstrate the wealth of information on a given process that can be obtained from the MOO instead of a single aggregate objective. The four optimization case studies are the design of a PI controller, an SO

Indexed as

decision variablesobjective functionspareto domainprocess optimization

Identifiers

PMID35879987
PMCPMC9028026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.