ArticleScientific reports2025
Hesitant bi-fuzzy multi-attribute information fusion with expert reliability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting alternatives wisely is essential in any multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) process, and it requires the participation of multiple experts. Initial decision data and the contributing experts' reliability affect the preciseness of the decision outcomes. However, no expert possesses exhaustive knowledge, and their estimations may exhibit varying preferences. Many times, experts hesitate to give contradictory/ conflicting information. Hence, the information gathered from them includes the hesitancy of the expert and conflict. To account for expert influence while preserving the integrity of the original data during aggregation, this paper proposes a hesitant bi-fuzzy information fusion (HBFIF) method that integrates expert reliability (ER) into the decision-making framework in the conflicting framework. Initially, the impression of expert reliability in the decision-making process is examined, and a reliability metric is constructed based on the degree of similarity among expert opinions. The power average (PA) operator is then used with expert reliability to aggregate expert preferences while preserving as much of the original data as feasible. Subsequently, inspired by the TOPSIS method, the hesitant bi-fuzzy information fusion approach is developed to maintain experts' original opinions and risk preferences depending on their assessed reliability. Finally, the proposed HBFIF method is applied to the multi-attribute decision-making framework in selecting an efficient hydrogen storage method in automobiles to confirm its effectiveness and applicability, underscoring its practical relevance and implementation.
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.