ArticleScientific reports2025
A novel Fractional fuzzy approach for multi-criteria decision-making in medical waste management.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical waste management within the Green Hospital approach: a systematic review of direct, contextual, and transferable evidence.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Pooled it
- An innovative fuzzy Revan index with CRITIC integration in multi-criterion decision-making.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Aggregation operators based on interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy linguistic sets for medical waste disposal planning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An evidence-fused neutrosophic framework for uncertainty-aware treatment selection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel generalized orthopair fuzzy CURLI MCDM framework for smart art communication integrating emotional intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An advanced fermatean fuzzy DoC MCDM architecture for comprehensive quantitative assessment of physical fitness competency across academic institutions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- An intelligent computational framework combining neural networks with complex Pythagorean fuzzy FUCA for airspace capacity evaluation and traffic forecasting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spherical bipolar fuzzy decision model for green infrastructure selection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A robust fractional fuzzy decision support framework for sustainable energy planning.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urban populations, coupled with increased healthcare service usage, highlight the need for safe and sustainable medical waste management (MWM). Choosing the right technology for MWM is a crucial challenge for decision-makers aiming to protect public health. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques are often used to address uncertainty and complexity inherent in such decisions. MCDM techniques based on traditional fuzzy sets (such as spherical and t-spherical fuzzy sets) leave significant membership value. In this response, a f, g, h-fractional fuzzy set (f, g, h-FrFS) based MCDM model is introduced. This study introduces the f, g, h-FrFS based Hamming and normalized Hamming distances. Additionally, we propose an improved Criteria Importance through Inter-Criteria Correlation (CRITIC) method to assess criteria weights and a novel distance-based Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to evaluate and rank MWM technologies. To test the robustness of the proposed approach, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, demonstrating the stability of the model under varying conditions. The result is the development of a comprehensive MCDM framework, referred to as f, g, h-FrF-CRITIC-TOPSIS, which incorporates relevant criteria for evaluating MWM technologies. The effectiveness of this framework is further validated through a comparative study. The results align with the actual situation and offer valuable insights into the implementation of suitable treatment technologies for MWM. This methodology proves to be highly effective in addressing the complex decision-making challenges associated with MWM, particularly in uncertain environments. Ultimately, this technique offers significant value for policymakers and organizations involved in medical systems. In medical premises, MWM is complicated, so this tool can assist them in navigating the complexities.
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.