ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Risk assessment based on a new decision-making approach with fermatean fuzzy sets.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.