ArticleScientific reports2026
An optimization method for railway alignment schemes based on game-theoretic combination weighting and an interval number model.
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
Abstract
Optimal selection of railway alignment schemes is a critical phase in railway line design. However, existing studies primarily adopt an engineering perspective, often overlooking economic and social factors. Current decision-making models also face limitations in quantifying qualitative indicators and balancing subjective and objective weights, thereby undermining the scientific rigor and effectiveness of the evaluation process. To address these issues, this study proposes a multi-attribute optimization model for railway alignment selection based on combined weighting and the interval number model. First, the key factors influencing railway alignment are systematically identified through expert consultations and an extensive literature review. On this basis, a multi-dimensional evaluation index system comprising 20 indicators is established, encompassing four dimensions: technical feasibility, economic rationality, environmental impact, and regional coordinated development. Subjective weights are derived using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), while objective weights are calculated through an improved CRITIC method. Game theory is then employed to integrate them. To further enhance the objectivity and robustness of the evaluation, the study develops a decision-making model based on interval number distance. This model quantifies qualitative indicators using interval numbers and ranks alternative schemes by computing their distances to an ideal solution. A case study on the Jieshipu-Pingliang section of the Dingxi-Pingliang railway confirms the method's validity. The results show that the comprehensive weighting method reduces the influence of weight factor sensitivity on route selection. Furthermore, the scheme ranking derived from the interval number model closely aligns with the scheme recommended by the design institute and demonstrates stability. The research findings can provide a scientific reference for optimizing railway alignment in economically underdeveloped regions.
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.