Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41935226›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

An uncertainty-aware ergonomic risk assessment framework using Interval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy Sets and hybrid MCDM.

Ayça Zenginoğlu, Yusuf Kuvvetli

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

2 authors.

Ayça ZenginoğluTechnology Transfer Office Coordinatorship, Aksaray University, Aksaray, 68100, Turkey. ayca.zenginoglu@aksaray.edu.tr.
Yusuf KuvvetliDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Cukurova University, Adana, 01330, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) pose a significant occupational health concern in manufacturing, where traditional ergonomic risk assessment methods (RULA, REBA, OWAS, OCRA, QEC, and SI) are limited by subjectivity and the inadequate handling of interdependent criteria. Existing research reveals a notable gap in integrated frameworks that systematically combine multiple assessment methods under uncertainty. This study introduces a novel approach that integrates Interval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy Sets (IVFFS) with multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques for systematic ergonomic evaluation. The framework incorporates IVFFS–PIPRECIA for uncertainty-aware factor weighting, IVFFS–MAIRCA for comparative method ranking, and an ENTROPY formulation that treats tasks as criteria to enhance objectivity. The results show that the force requirement and automation compatibility are the most influential ergonomic factors, whereas REBA, OCRA, and OWAS demonstrate superior overall performance. Comparative findings further reveal substantial variation across single-method evaluations: posture-centric tools disproportionately emphasize certain risks, whereas the integrated model uncovers overlooked high-risk activities by aggregating the complementary strengths of different methods. The proposed framework advances ergonomic risk management by integrating advanced fuzzy logic and MCDM techniques, providing a transparent, systematic decision-support tool for practitioners and industrial stakeholders. It supports evidence-based workplace design and contributes to safer, more efficient manufacturing systems.

Indexed as

Ergonomic risk assessmentInterval-Valued Fermatean Fuzzy SetsManufacturing systemsMulti-criteria decision-makingMusculoskeletal disorders

Identifiers

PMID41935226
PMCPMC13213037

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.