ArticleScientific reports2026
Advanced gravitational decision-making method inspired by newton's law of universal gravitation.
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
This study introduces the Advanced Gravitational Decision-Making (GRAD) approach, an innovative framework that enriches multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) by integrating inter-alternative interactions, the standard deviations of criteria, and distance into a single model. Inspired by Newton’s universal law of gravitation, GRAD surpasses conventional methods by offering a more realistic assessment of alternatives, particularly when facing high uncertainty or closely matched alternatives. The method treats criteria with higher standard deviation as having “greater mass,” thus exerting stronger influence on the final decision. Simultaneously, distance calculations capture how similar or dissimilar alternatives “attract” or “repel” each other, leading to more nuanced rankings. In a demonstrative case, GRAD was compared against popular techniques like TOPSIS, VIKOR, and CoCoSo, revealing more robust outcomes under uncertainty. Sensitivity analyses further confirmed its adaptability to varying weight and risk preferences, while Monte Carlo simulations showed that slight data perturbations rarely altered GRAD’s overall rankings. Moreover, the method was applied to a real-world dataset on concrete compressive strength, a fundamental mechanical property, where GRAD successfully identified the most balanced mix design by accounting for complex trade-offs among multiple material and process variables. Organizations in diverse sectors can therefore benefit from GRAD by objectively evaluating the interplay among alternatives, ensuring more reliable and informed decisions. Overall, GRAD provides a comprehensive yet flexible tool that enhances the rigor of MCDM in uncertain, multidimensional scenarios.
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.