A Multi-Criteria 2-Tuple Linguistic Group Decision-Making Method Based on TODIM for Cholecystitis Treatments Selection

Abstract

Cholecystitis is a common disease with a high incidence, and attracts much attention. It not only harms human health, but also affects quality of work and life. Therefore, the choice of a suitable treatment is badly important for patients. In this paper, a novel selection model of treatments for cholecystitis based on hybrid multiple-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM), which is helpful to choose the most suitable treatment in the case of asymmetric information between doctors and patients. Subsequently, subjective and objective criteria are comprehensively taken into account in the index system of the selection model for cholecystitis, and combines 2-tuple linguistic with quantitative data analysis. Besides, the evaluation information obtained from the patient's conditions, the treatment and the hospital's medical status, etc., including real numbers, interval numbers, and linguistic labels with multi-granularity, is more complete and real. And the 2-tuple linguistic model is used to unify the non-homogeneous information, so the treatment selection is accurate and reliable. Simultaneously, for the unknown index and criteria weight, the improved entropy weight method and the BWM (best-worst-method) are utilized to figure out the index weight and criteria weight, respectively. Further, TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese for interactive and multicriteria decision-making model) method based on the prospect theory is applied to solve the prioritization of cholecystitis treatments, and give full consideration to the decision maker of risk aversion. Eventually, an empirical study of treatment selection for cholecystitis is conducted. Sensitivity analysis and comparative analysis indicate that the proposed selection model of treatments for cholecystitis patients is reliable and effective. INDEX TERMS Cholecystitis, best-worst method (BWM), entropy weight method, 2-tuple linguistic, group decision-making (MCGDM), TODIM.

Restoration Methods Selection for Wood Components of Chinese Ancient Architectures Based on TODIM with Single-Valued Neutrosophic Sets

“…TODIM method describes the dominance of each alternative over others fully considered the psychological behavior of decision-makers under risk [28,29]. In order to depict the 2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering psychological behavior of decision-makers, it is possible to modify parameters to reflect the preferences of decisionmakers [30][31][32]. To prioritize restoration methods, we shall use the TODIM method.…”

CPT‐TODIM method for bipolar fuzzy multi‐attribute group decision making and its application to network security service provider selection

“…Xu et al 57 paid attention to determining more reasonable weight of attributes to improve the original TODIM method. Xie et al 58 carried forward the TODIM method in medical decision making. They argued to establish the 2‐tuple linguistic TODIM model for dealing with cholecystitis treatments selection.…”

“…Xie et al 58 carried forward the TODIM method in medical decision making. They argued to establish the 2-tuple linguistic TODIM model for dealing with cholecystitis treatments selection.…”

A Further Study on Multiperiod Health Diagnostics Methodology under a Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set

“…Ninety-three papers have cited Ye [6] in their references. We list them in the following: Peng and Dai [8], Ye [9], Biswas et al [10], Broumi et al [11], Chatterjee et al [12,13], Cui and Ye [14], Fan [15], Fan et al [16], Fu et al [17], Gou and Wang [18], Jha et al [19,20], Li et al [21][22][23], Liu and Luo [24], Luo et al [25], Nancy and Garg [26], Nguyen et al [27], Peng [28], Peng and Dai [29], Rajangam and Annamalai [30], Şahin [31], Shao et al [32], Shi and Yuan [33], Tian et al [34], Wang et al [35], Wei and Zhang [36], Xie et al [37], Ye [38], Zhai et al [39], Zhang et al [40], Zhao et al [41], Akram et al [42], Ali et al [43], Cai and Yang [44], Fan et al [45], Garg and Nancy [46], Guan et al [47], Karaaslan and Hayat [48], Khanet al [49], Küçük and Şahin [50], Liu [51], Liu et al…”

“…There are 49 papers that have cited Ye and Fu [7] in their references. We list them in the following: Liu et al [100], Peng and Dai [8], Awang et al [101], Chatterjee et al [12,13], Cui and Ye [14], Fu et al [17], Gou and Wang [18], Hu et al [102], Li et al [21], Long et al [103], Luo et al [25], Nancy and Garg [26], Nguyen et al [27], Rajangam and Annamalai [30], Ren et al [104], Shen et al [105], Shi and Yuan [33], Smith [106], Xie et al [37], Akram et al [107], Ali et al [43], Hu et al [108], Ji et al [109][110][111], Karaaslan [112], Karaaslan and Hayat [48], Khan et al [113], Liu [51], Mondal et al [55][56][57], Naz et al [114], Peng and Dai [115], Tu et al [65], Uluçay et al [116], Wu et al [67], Ye [70], Ashraf et al [117], Chen and Ye [73], Fu and Ye [76], Guan et al [118], Guo et al [119], Hu et ...…”