Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38768117›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

An integrated group decision-making method under q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic context with partial weight information.

Fatima Abbas, Jawad Ali, Wali Khan Mashwani, Muhammad I Syam

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fatima AbbasInstitute of Numerical Sciences, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat, KPK, Pakistan.
Jawad AliInstitute of Numerical Sciences, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat, KPK, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-3372-0034
Wali Khan MashwaniInstitute of Numerical Sciences, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat, KPK, Pakistan.
Muhammad I SyamDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al‑Ain, UAE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering the advantages of q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic set (q-RFLS), which includes both linguistic and numeric data to describe evaluations, this article aims to design a new decision-making methodology by integrating Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) and qualitative flexible (QUALIFLEX) methods based on the revised aggregation operators to solve multiple criteria group decision making (MCGDM). To accomplish this, we first revise the extant operational laws of q-RFLSs to make up for their shortcomings. Based on novel operational laws, we develop q-rung orthopair fuzzy 2-tuple linguistic (q-RFL) weighted averaging and geometric operators and provide the corresponding results. Next, we develop a maximization deviation model to determine the criterion weights in the decision-making procedure, which accounts for partial weight unknown information. Then, the VIKOR and QUALIFLEX methodologies are combined, which can assess the concordance index of each ranking combination using group utility and individual maximum regret value of alternative and acquire the ranking result based on each permutation's general concordance index values. Consequently, a case study is conducted to select the best bike-sharing recycling supplier utilizing the suggested VIKOR-QUALIFLEX MCGDM method, demonstrating the method's applicability and availability. Finally, through sensitivity and comparative analysis, the validity and superiority of the proposed method are demonstrated.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFuzzy LogicLinguisticsAlgorithmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID38768117
PMCPMC11104686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.