ArticleScientific reports2026
An integrated multi-criteria and evolutionary optimization framework for supply chain disruption risk prioritization and mitigation.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supply chain disruption risk models often separate risk prioritization from mitigation design, limiting their ability to support actionable decision-making under uncertainty. This study addresses this gap by integrating the Best-Worst Method (BWM), VIKOR compromise ranking, and evolutionary multi-objective optimization into a unified decision framework. BWM is used to derive consistent expert-based criterion weights, VIKOR identifies compromise-prioritized disruption exposures, and evolutionary optimization selects cost-constrained mitigation portfolios. The framework is parameterized using data from 100 industry experts, supported by archival operational indicators and simulation-based disruption scenarios calibrated to reflect multi-tier network behavior. Expert judgments are validated through consistency ratios, content validity measures, and inter-rater agreement. The model is applied to a 15-node supply network and evaluated against a baseline without coordinated mitigation. Results show that the selected portfolio achieves a 46% reduction in expected service loss and a 34% reduction in time-to-recovery relative to baseline conditions. Sensitivity analyses across weight aggregation, compromise parameters, and disruption scenarios confirm the stability of prioritization and portfolio selection outcomes. The findings demonstrate that linking preference-based evaluation with optimization-based design enables systematic identification of mitigation strategies under realistic constraints. All data, parameter settings, and computational procedures are provided in the Supplementary Materials to support full reproducibility.
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.