ArticleScientific reports2026
Multi-criteria consensus-based group decision making with prospect-regret TOPSIS for human-AI tool selection under linguistic Z-numbers.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have transformed computer technology. Now, computers can learn and adapt autonomously, make sound judgments, and create environments in which humans and AI work in harmony. Analytical frameworks that can process data with uncertainty, imprecision, and multiple perspectives are essential for the success of human-AI collaboration. In this connection, linguistic Z-number (LZN) evolution models play a crucial role in selecting tools for human-AI collaboration because they can better capture uncertainty and fuzziness. Given this, we extend multicriteria group decision-making (MCGDM) by incorporating LZNs. The structure of MCGDM under LZNs, the consensus-building process, estimation of experts' weights, and the ranking of options are the main challenges. In the experts' primary opinion-based MCGDM, we believe that expert participation and the opportunity to revise their opinions with original linguistic terms (LTs) would be more practical. However, in existing studies, experts have no scope to revise their opinions based on the original LTs. Most studies on consensus-building either do so automatically or advise experts to revise their opinions based on virtual LTs. But either automatically or virtually, LTs cannot be physically represented by words, which is a significant drawback. Given these facts, we propose an interactive, strategy-based consensus-building in which we advise experts to revise their opinions within the original LTs. To estimate experts' weights, we developed an integrated subjective and objective method. By simultaneously assigning subjective weights and opinion-based relative-relevance indices to the experts, we derive the adjusted subjective expert weights. The objective weights of experts are derived from the criterion-based entropy method. The ranking of options, we proposed the prospect and regret theory-based TOPSIS ranking approach to rank the options. Finally, a case study on the optimal selection of an AI tool for human-AI collaboration validates the proposed method. Through a comparative analysis with alternative methodologies, we demonstrate the feasibility, stability, and superiority of the proposed model.
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.