ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing strategic basketball decisions using a bipolar complex fuzzy multi criteria group decision making framework.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The work offers a methodological improvement of decision-making based on a Bipolar Complex Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making (BCF-MCGDM) framework that incorporates Aczel-Alsina triangular norms and conorms (AATNs and AATCNs) to become more effective at modeling uncertainty and dual experts’ preferences. The framework incorporates the merits of bipolar complex fuzzy sets (BCFS) and flexible aggregation operators in order to be able to embrace both positive and negative expert judgments in ambiguity. The proposed BCF-AATN approach, unlike the traditional fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy approaches, is able to address interdependent criteria and contradictory judgments in a complicated decision-making setting. To demonstrate its applicability, the framework is applied to a real-life problem in basketball strategy evaluation, where a number of experts evaluate tactical and analytical criteria. The model recognizes the Eastern Falcons as the most strategical team and justifies its strength using the sensitivity and comparative analyses. Generally, the suggested BCF-MCGDM framework provides a generalizable, theoretically based, and methodologically better system of decision support that is applicable to sports and other fields, which share certain characteristics of uncertainty and consensus among a group. Being a fast-paced and competitive game, basketball demands that players and coaches make decisions in changing tactics, uncertain conditions, and varying expert opinions. The suggested framework integrates BCF logic with adaptable aggregation techniques to assess complicated strategic alternatives. When applied to real-world data, the findings placed the Eastern Falcons as the most strategically appropriate team, with high tactical flexibility, awareness of the game, and data-driven strategies. The Northern Titans came in second, due to good player combinations and game analysis, followed by the Thunder Hawks. The Southern Stallions had a balanced performance in all categories, and the Capital Warriors stood last, as they depended on strategy but failed to execute it at the right time. Altogether, the framework based on the BCFS emphasizes the latent strengths and weaknesses of team strategies and offers viable information to coaches and analysts to facilitate the preparation of games, in-match decisions, and long-term planning.
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.