Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36168440›Full record

ArticleComputers & industrial engineering2022

A probabilistic linguistic opinion dynamics method based on the DeGroot model for emergency decision-making in response to COVID-19.

Yuanyuan Liu, Youlong Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers & industrial engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Conformity to popular, not average, opinions: Models, data, and evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Yuanyuan LiuSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Xidian University, Xi'an, 710126, PR China.
Youlong YangSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Xidian University, Xi'an, 710126, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency decision-making entails a multi-criteria problem with a short period and urgent events, which creates difficulties for decision makers to undertake an optimal decision. To ensure the validity and rationality of decision results, the probabilistic linguistic term set is adopted to represent the evaluation information of experts because it can assign different probabilities or importance to different linguistic terms, which is closely related to human cognition. In addition, to portray the dynamic changes in the emergency decision-making process, this study develops a new dynamics method based on the DeGroot model with probabilistic linguistic information. First, to simulate the transition matrix of probabilistic linguistic opinions, the basic operational rules are defined based on the transformation function and expectation function. Next, three forms of influence matrices incorporating similarity, self-persistence, and authority degrees are constructed, and the consensus conditions of the models are discussed. Then, considering the social networks and incomplete trust relationships between experts, a fourth trust-based influence matrix is devised. A case study of emergency decision-making for assessing response plans to COVID-19 is performed to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the dynamic method. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis is conducted. Finally, comparisons with classical methods are performed to illustrate the superiorities of the proposed algorithms.

Indexed as

Consensus reaching processDeGroot modelEmergency decision-makingOpinion dynamicsProbabilistic linguistic term set

Identifiers

PMID36168440
PMCPMC9499693

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.