Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Interval Neutrosophic Projection-Based VIKOR Method for Selecting Doctors

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mobile healthcare applications are emerging as an innovative and practical technology resource to provide automated and efficient medical services online. However, vagueness and uncertainty commonly exist during the process of selecting doctors online and few studies have addressed these problems. In this paper, we employed interval neutrosophic sets (INSs) to process evaluation information. We proposed and normalized an improved projection measurement for INSs to overcome the shortcomings in extant projection measurements. Additionally, we presented a projection-based difference measure combined with the VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method to establish a projection-based VIKOR method. Moreover, we introduced transition functions to transform online evaluation information into INSs and employed the maximizing deviation method to obtain weights for criteria. It is a practical problem for patients to choose a suitable doctor on a mobile healthcare application. This problem can be solved by applying the proposed method. Finally, we verified the validity of the method by comparison with several existing methods, and then we conducted sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the method’s reliability. The doctor selection problem can be effectively solved by the projection-based VIKOR method for INSs. Our comparison indicates that the proposed method is more appropriate than other methods, and the final ranking results are more precise than the actual ranking list found online. INSs are effective in describing vagueness and uncertainty in multi-criteria decision-making problems. The method proposed in this paper was viable and valid for use in doctor selection processes with information expressed by INSs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Meng F, Chen X. Correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy sets and their application based on fuzzy measures. Cogn Comput. 2015;7(4):445–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Czubenko M, Kowalczuk Z, Ordys A. Autonomous driver based on an intelligent system of decision-making. Cogn Comput. 2015;7(5):569–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cervantes JA, Rodríguez LF, López S, Ramos F, Robles F. Autonomous agents and ethical decision-making. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(2):278–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Akusok A, Miche Y, Hegedus J, Rui N, Lendasse A. A two-stage methodology using K-NN and false-positive minimizing ELM for nominal data classification. Cogn Comput. 2014;6(3):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. He Y, Chen H, He Z, Zhou L. Multi-attribute decision making based on neutral averaging operators for intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;27:64–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. He Y, He Z, Chen H. Intuitionistic fuzzy interaction bonferroni means and its application to multiple attribute decision making. Ieee T Cybernetics. 2016;24(3):558–73.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kulak O, Goren HG, Supciller AA. A new multi criteria decision making approach for medical imaging systems considering risk factors. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;35:931–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ivlev I, Kneppo P, Bartak M. Multicriteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technol Econ Dev. 2014;20(3):576–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ivlev I, Vacek J, Kneppo P. Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res. 2015;247(1):216–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Piegat A, Sałabun W. Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for assessing the severity of chronic liver disease. Lect Notes Comput Sc. 2015;9119:228–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang J, Gong L, Tang Y, Yan J, He H, Zhang L, et al. An improved SVM-based cognitive diagnosis algorithm for operation states of distribution grid. Cogn Comput. 2015;7(5):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baig MM, Gholamhosseini H, Connolly MJ. Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges. Australas Phys Eng S. 2015;38(1):23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pires P, Mendes L, Mendes J, Rodrigues R, Pereira A. Integrated e-healthcare system for elderly support. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(2):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gong J, Sun S. Individual doctor recommendation model on medical social network. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on advanced data mining and applications, Part II. Beijing, China; 2011. pp. 69–81.

  15. Varshney U. A model for improving quality of decisions in mobile health. Decis Support Syst. 2014;62(2):66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandea C, Cadariu AA, Coman I, Drugan T, Ţigan Ş. Multiple criteria decision making in evaluating and ranking medical process models. Appl Med Inform. 2011;20:56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  17. He Y, He Z, Lee DH, Kim KJ, Zhang L, Yang X. Robust fuzzy programming method for MRO problems considering location effect, dispersion effect and model uncertainty. Comput Ind Eng. 2017;105:76–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8(3):338–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smarandache F. A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic. Mult-Valued Log. 2002;8(3):489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wang H, Smarandache F, Yanqing Z, Sunderraman R. Single valued neutrosophic sets. Rev Air Force Acad. 2010;17(1):10.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang YQ, Sunderraman R. Interval neutrosophic sets and logic: theory and applications in computing. Arizona: Hexis; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ye J. Improved cross entropy measures of single valued neutrosophic sets and interval neutrosophic sets and their multicriteria decision making methods. Cybern Inform Tech. 2015;15(4):13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ye J. Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2014;26(1):165–72.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang HY, Ji P, Wang JQ, Chen XH. A neutrosophic normal cloud and its application in decision-making. Cogn Comput. 2016;8(4):649–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ye J, Jing F. Multi-period medical diagnosis method using a single valued neutrosophic similarity measure based on tangent function. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2015;123:142–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tian Z, Zhang H, Wang J, Wang J, Chen X. Multi-criteria decision-making method based on a cross-entropy with interval neutrosophic sets. Int J Syst Sci. 2015;47(15):3598–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ye J. Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified neutrosophic sets for medical diagnoses. Artif Intell Med. 2014;63(3):171–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang H, Wang J, Chen X. An outranking approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems with interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Neural Comput Appl. 2016;27(3):615–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zeng S, Baležentis T, Chen J, Luo G. A projection method for multiple attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. Informatica-Lithuan. 2013;24(3):485–503.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yue Z. An intuitionistic fuzzy projection-based approach for partner selection. Appl Math Model. 2013;37(23):9538–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Xu Z, Hu H. Projection models for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Int J Info Tech Dec Mak. 2010;09(2):267–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsao CY, Chen TY. A projection-based compromising method for multiple criteria decision analysis with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Appl Soft Comput. 2016;45:207–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ye J. Simplified neutrosophic harmonic averaging projection-based method for multiple attribute decision-making problems. Int J Mach Learn Cyb. 2015; doi:10.1007/s13042-015-0456-0.

  34. Ye J. Bidirectional projection method for multiple attribute group decision making with neutrosophic numbers. Neural Comput Appl. 2015; doi:10.1007/s00521-015-2123-5.

  35. Ji P, Zhang HY, Wang JQ. A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection. Neural Comput Appl. 2016; doi:10.1007/s00521-016-2436-z.

  36. Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri BC. TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput Appl. 2016;27(3):727–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bausys R, Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A. Application of neutrosophic set to multicriteria decision making by COPRAS. Econ. Computat. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2015;49(2):1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zavadskas EK, Baušys R, Lazauskas M. Sustainable assessment of alternative sites for the construction of a waste incineration plant by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Sustain-Basel. 2015;7(12):15923–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zavadskas EK, Baušys R, Stanujkic D, Magdalinovic-Kalinovic M. Selection of lead-zinc flotation circuit design by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Acta Montan Slovaca. 2017;21(2):85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Peng J, Wang J, Yang W. A multi-valued neutrosophic qualitative flexible approach based on likelihood for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Int J Syst Sci. 2016;48(2):425–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sun HX, Yang HX, Wu JZ, Ouyang Y. Interval neutrosophic numbers Choquet integral operator for multi-criteria decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst. 2010;28(6):2443–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu P, Tang G. Multi-criteria group decision-making based on interval neutrosophic uncertain linguistic variables and Choquet integral. Cogn Comput. 2016:1–21.

  43. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res. 2007;178(2):514–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Opricovic S. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of Civil Engineering; 1998. p. 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dou Y, Zhang P, Jiang J, Yang K, Chen Y. MCDM based on reciprocal judgment matrix: a comparative study of E-VIKOR and E-TOPSIS algorithmic methods with interval numbers. Appl Math Inf Sci. 2014;8(3):1400–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bausys R, Zavadskas EK. Multicriteria decision making approach by VIKOR under interval neutrosophic set environment. Econ Computat Econ Cybern Stud Res. 2015;4:33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, Tarokh MJ. A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(10):12160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Scaramuzzi F, Imbo' M. A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making method for supplier selection with VIKOR method. Int J Fuzzy Syst Appl. 2012;2(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chiu WY, Tzeng GH, Li HL. A new hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR to improve e-store business. Knowl-Based Syst. 2013;37(2):48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cristóbal JRS. Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: the Vikor method. Renew Energ. 2011;36(2):498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Xu Z, Da Q. Projection method for uncertain multi-attribute decision making with preference information on alternatives. Int J Info Tech Dec Mak. 2011;3(3):429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res. 2004;156(2):445–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Qin J, Liu X, Pedrycz W. An extended VIKOR method based on prospect theory for multiple attribute decision making under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Knowl-Based Syst. 2015;86:116–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yue Z, Jia Y. A direct projection-based group decision-making methodology with crisp values and interval data. Soft Comput. 2015; doi:10.1007/s00500-015-1953-5.

  55. Tong LI, Chen CC, Wang CH. Optimization of multi-response processes using the VIKOR method. Int J Adv Manuf Tech. 2007;31(11):1049–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang HY, Ji P, Wang JQ, Chen XH. A novel decision support model for satisfactory restaurants utilizing social information: a case study of TripAdvisor.com. Tour Manag. 2017;59:281–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Şahin R, Liu P. Maximizing deviation method for neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information. Neural Comput Appl. 2016;27(7):2017–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Li N, Zhao H. Performance evaluation of eco-industrial thermal power plants by using fuzzy GRA-VIKOR and combination weighting techniques. J Clean Prod. 2016;135:169–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zhu GN, Hu J, Qi J, Gu CC, Peng YH. An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Adv Eng Inform. 2015;29(3):408–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 71371196 and 71210003). The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable comments and constructive suggestions that have led to an improved version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China

    Junhua Hu, Li Pan & Xiaohong Chen

Authors
  1. Junhua Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaohong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junhua Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not required as no human or animals were involved.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, J., Pan, L. & Chen, X. An Interval Neutrosophic Projection-Based VIKOR Method for Selecting Doctors. Cogn Comput 9, 801–816 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9499-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9499-8

Keywords