ReviewMethodsX2026
Machine learning assisted multi-criteria decision-making approaches for site selection: A systematic review.
Review in MethodsX, 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
Choosing a site for a business is a crucial decision that can have lasting effects on sustainable growth and competitiveness. Location selection involves a multi-dimensional decision-making process that influences long-term performance, cost efficiency, and operational success. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) framework, we systematically reviewed 189 peer-reviewed studies (2015-2025) to understand how different methods are applied across domains, contexts, and criteria in site-selection problems. Results show a clear shift from classical MCDM models to hybrid (MCDM+ML) frameworks. These hybrids combine transparency and interpretability with predictive strength. Building on this evidence, our review provides the first cross-domain taxonomy tracing the methodological evolution from classical MCDM to hybrid MCDM+ML approaches. The challenges include the absence of benchmark datasets, the lack of methodological standards, and the difficulty of cross-domain validation. Hybrid frameworks balance transparency, predictive capability, and stakeholder trust, and they are adaptable across domains with minimal model changes. This review establishes a roadmap for benchmarking, reproducibility, and validation, positioning hybrid MCDM+ML frameworks as standardized, trustworthy tools for high-stakes site selection.
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.