ArticleScientific reports2023
Group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process by hesitant fuzzy numbers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hesitant bi-fuzzy multi-attribute information fusion with expert reliability.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Soft cluster-rectangle method for eliciting criteria weights in multi-criteria decision-making.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A novel MADM model integrating hybrid information for evaluating the development prospects of urban new energy vehicles.PloS one · 2025Article
- Fuzzy APPSS: A novel method for quantifying COVID-19 impact in India under triangular spherical fuzzy environment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the increasing complexity of decision problems, many managers employ multiple experts to reach a good decision in a group decision making. Now, if there is ambiguity in the evaluation of experts, the use of fuzzy numbers can be useful for each expert. In these situations, the use of hesitant fuzzy numbers (HFNs) which consists of several fuzzy numbers with special conditions can be suggested. HFNs are as an extension of the fuzzy numbers to take a better determining the membership functions of the parameters by several experts. Because of simple and fast calculations, in this paper, we use triangular HFNs in the pairwise comparison matrix of analytic hierarchy process by opinions of a group of decision makers in a hesitant fuzzy environment. We define consistency of the hesitant fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix and use the arithmetic operations on the HFNs and a new method of comparing HFNs to get the hesitant fuzzy performance score. By using score function to hesitant fuzzy score we can get a final score for alternatives. Finally, a practical example is provided to show the the effectiveness of this study. The obtained results from this paper show that new method can get a better answer by keeping the experts' opinions in the process of solving the problem.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.