Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome

被引:1
|
作者
Wojciech Sałabun
Andrzej Piegat
机构
[1] West Pomeranian University of Technology,Department of Artificial Intelligence Methods and Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
来源
Artificial Intelligence Review | 2017年 / 48卷
关键词
Multi-criteria decision-making; COMET method; AHP; TOPSIS; Characteristic objects; Fuzzy set theory;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are commonly used in many fields of research, e.g., engineering and manufacturing systems, water resources studies , medicine, and etc. However, there is no effective approach of selecting a MCDM method to problem, which is solved. The formal requirements of each MCDM method are not sufficient because most methods would seem to be appropriate for most problems. Therefore, the main purpose of the paper is a comparison of accuracy selected MCDM methods. Proposed approach is presented on the example of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Additionally, the paper presents characteristic objects method (COMET) as a potential decision making method for use in medical problems, which accuracy is compared with TOPSIS and AHP. In the experimental study, the average and standard deviation of the root mean square error of evaluations are examined for groups of randomly selected patients, each described by age, blood pressure, and heart rate. Then, the correctness of choosing the patient in the best and worst condition is also examined among randomly selected pairs. As a result of the experimental study, rankings obtained by the COMET method are distinctly more accurate than those obtained by TOPSIS or AHP techniques. The COMET method, in the opposite of others method, is completely free of the rank reversal phenomenon, which is identified as a main source of problems with evaluations accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:557 / 571
页数:14
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome
    Salabun, Wojciech
    Piegat, Andrzej
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, 2017, 48 (04) : 557 - 571
  • [2] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability
    Mulliner, Emma
    Malys, Naglis
    Maliene, Vida
    OMEGA-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2016, 59 : 146 - 156
  • [3] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for pipe material selection in sugar industry
    Anojkumar, L.
    Ilangkumaran, M.
    Sasirekha, V.
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2014, 41 (06) : 2964 - 2980
  • [4] Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for Assessing the Severity of Chronic Liver Disease
    Piegat, Andrzej
    Salabun, Wojciech
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND SOFT COMPUTING, PT I, 2015, 9119 : 228 - 238
  • [5] Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the Assessment of Corporate Sustainability Performance in Energy Sector
    Ersoy, Nazli
    Taslak, Soner
    EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW, 2023, 23 (03) : 341 - 362
  • [6] Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS
    Opricovic, S
    Tzeng, GH
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2004, 156 (02) : 445 - 455
  • [7] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for Product Aspect Ranking: TOPSIS and VIKOR
    Alrababah, Saif A. Ahmad
    Gan, Keng Hoon
    Tan, Tien-Ping
    2017 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (ICICS), 2017, : 76 - 81
  • [8] APPLICATION OF MCDM/MCDA METHODS IN CITY RANKINGS REVIEW AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
    Ogrodnik, Karolina
    ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 86 (03): : 132 - 151
  • [9] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan
    Lee, Hsing-Chen
    Chang, Ching-Ter
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2018, 92 : 883 - 896
  • [10] Comparative analysis on washability indices of anthracite coal by using MCDM methods
    Sokolovic, Jovica
    Stanujki, Dragisa
    Stirbanovi, Zoran
    Ilic, Ivana
    PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROBLEMS OF MINERAL PROCESSING, 2025, 61 (01):