Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989297›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

Risk assessment based on a new decision-making approach with fermatean fuzzy sets.

Hilal Biderci, Ali F Guneri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hilal BiderciIndustrial Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2227-0063
Ali F GuneriIndustrial Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study presents a new approach to decision-making based on the selection of decision-makers according to evaluated criteria in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Therefore, sub-decision-maker groups (SDMGs) are created for each evaluated criterion. The SDMG approach, which is created according to the criteria, offers a more flexible and dynamic structure than the existing approaches. This approach aims to use the expertise and knowledge of decision-makers more effectively. The decision-making approach presented in this study offers an innovative model and adds a new dimension to decision-making processes. This decision-making approach is applied to the plastic injection moulding machine risk assessment, as it involves different criteria. In addition to classical risk parameters such as probability, severity, frequency, and detectability, new parameters such as human error, machine error, and existing safety measures are also used in the risk assessment. Methods: The integration of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods into the interval valued fermatean fuzzy set (IVFFS) environment makes an important contribution to a more comprehensive consideration of risks and uncertainties in the risk assessment process. The IVFF-AHP method is used to weight the risk parameters and determine the hazard scores, and the TOPSIS method is used to rank the hazards. A holistic and systematic approach to risk assessment has been achieved by integrating these two methods. Modelling of these methods is carried out using MATLAB_R2024a software. Results: According to the evaluated criteria, it was concluded that the determination of the decision makers separately is applicable to the decision-making process. Identifying the existing safety measures parameter as the most important risk parameter emphasizes the central role of this factor in risk assessment. In addition, machine error and human error parameters are also found to be important in risk assessment. These parameters, which are used for the first time in the literature, offer a broader perspective than traditional methods and provide significant advantages in risk assessment. According to the evaluations, electricity, asphyxiating and toxic gases, and hot water use are determined as the most risky hazards. The sensitivity and comparative analysis performed in the study confirm that the proposed methodology produces consistent and reasonable results.

Indexed as

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)Fermatean fuzzy setsMulti-criteria decision-making (MCDM)Risk assessmentTechnique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS)

Identifiers

PMID40989297
PMCPMC12453700

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.