ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessment of consolidative multi-criteria decision making (C-MCDM) algorithms for optimal mapping of polymer materials in additive manufacturing: A case study of orthotic application.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid Decision-Making Management for Material Selection in the Design of Wearable Pressure-Sensing Orthoses in Neurorehabilitation.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intelligent Patient Management in Viral Diseases: An Integrated Regression Model and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Convalescent Plasma Transfusion.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objectives of this research are twofold. The primary goal is to introduce, investigate, and contrast consolidative multi-criteria decision-making (C-MCDM) approaches. The second objective is the investigation of five alternative additive manufacturing materials. Methods: It integrates the subjective and objective weights using the Bayes hypothesis in conjunction with a normal method. Chang's Extent Analysis Method under fuzzy logic is used to estimate subjective weights and the CRITIC approach is used for assessing objective weights. Ranking techniques, including the simple ranking process (SRP), multi-objective optimization based on ratio analysis (MOORA), measurement alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS), and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) are applied. It also encompasses sensitivity analysis based on Kendall's coefficient of concordance and rank reversal phenomenon analysis. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, a weighted rank measure of correlation, and rank similarity coefficient are among the metrics used to evaluate agreement between different approaches. It entails gathering expert opinions regarding the importance of various criteria as well as conducting extensive experiments. Results: The findings of the study indicate that polylactic acid is the best material to use for orthoses. When compared to the other MCDM approaches being discussed, SRP is the most reliable approach. It is also demonstrated that the SRP, MARCOS, and TOPSIS methods are rank reversal-free. Furthermore, SRP exhibits a very poor association with the TOPSIS technique but a strong correlation with the MOORA and MARCOS approaches. Conclusions: To ensure results reliability, it is necessary to consider both the subjectivity and objectivity of weights as well as apply multiple MCDM methodologies in addition to sensitivity analysis.
Indexed as
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.