ArticlePloS one2025
A novel approach to group decision-making using generalized bipolar neutrosophic sets.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces operational laws for Aczél-Alsina aggregation within the framework of generalized bipolar neutrosophic sets (GBNS), tailored for group decision-making scenarios. Novel aggregation operators, including the Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Weighted Average (GBNAAWA), Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Ordered Weighted Average (GBNAAOWA), Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Hybrid Weighted Average (GBNAAHWA), Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Weighted Geometric (GBNAAWG), Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Ordered Weighted Geometric (GBNAAOWG), and Generalized Bipolar Neutrosophic Aczél-Alsina Hybrid Weighted Geometric (GBNAAHWG), are proposed to address complex decision-making processes under uncertainty. The methodology is demonstrated through a case study and an illustrative example to validate its practical applicability. Comparative and sensitivity analyses highlight the robustness and adaptability of the proposed operators in various decision contexts. Key findings, discussions, and limitations are presented to provide insights into the method's effectiveness and areas for future research. This work contributes to advancing decision-making models by integrating Aczél-Alsina aggregation with bipolar neutrosophic theory, offering a novel approach to handling ambiguity and conflicting information.
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.