Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41866388›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

An advanced fermatean fuzzy DoC MCDM architecture for comprehensive quantitative assessment of physical fitness competency across academic institutions.

Liyi Xie, Yali Huo, XianLiang Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Liyi XieShandong University of Political Science and Law, Shandong, 250014, China.
Yali HuoShandong University of Political Science and Law, Shandong, 250014, China.
XianLiang WangSchool of Physical Education, Shandong University, Shandong, 250061, China. wxl20252026@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fitness of the students in the college is a critical parameter of their health, well-being, and academic output. Nonetheless, the assessment of physical fitness determinants is uncertain and subjective due to differing opinions among experts and the interconnection of the standards with one another. In addressing this complexity, the current research presents a new Fermatean Fuzzy (FF) Deck-of-Cards-Method (DoCM) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) model for the quantitative evaluation of physical fitness in academic settings. The model is based on the fact that FF sets have high expressiveness, enabling them to represent expert hesitation and dual uncertainty more effectively than conventional fuzzy models. The DoC approach is used to obtain the systematic and preference-based weights of the evaluation criteria, thereby achieving rational and flexible prioritization. A hypothetical case study is created to demonstrate the relevance of the framework, encompassing criteria such as endurance, strength, flexibility, body composition, and mental well-being. The findings underscore the model’s ability to produce consistent and explainable rankings of fitness determinants using incomplete or unclear information. When compared to current literature where most models use FS/IFS/PFS as their default uncertainty modeling framework with cognitively demanding weighting functions, the proposed FF-DoC framework bridges the gap of integrating high-expressiveness uncertainty modeling with transparent and human-eliciting weight elicitation to assess institutional fitness competency.

Indexed as

Decision makingDeck of cardsFermatean fuzzyPhysical fitness

Identifiers

PMID41866388
PMCPMC13149643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.