PD46 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis In Healthcare: Scientometric And Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a useful tool in complex decision-making situations and has been used in medical fields to evaluate treatment options and drug selection. We aimed to provide valuable insights on the use of MCDA in health care through examining the research focus of existing studies, major fields, major applications, most productive authors and countries, and most common journals in the domain using a scientometric and bibliometric analysis. Methods Publications related to MCDA in health care were identified by searching the Web of Science Core Collection on 14 July 2021. Three bibliometric software programs (VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, and CiteSpace) were used to conduct the analysis. Results A total of 410 publications were identified from 196 academic journals (average yearly growth rate of 32% from 1999 to 2021), with 23,637 co-cited references by 871 institutions from 70 countries or regions. The USA was the most productive country (n=80), while the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (n=16), Université de Montréal (n= 13), and Syreon Research Institute (n=12) were the most productive institutions. The biggest nodes in every cluster of author networks were Aos Alaa Zaidan, Mireille Goetghebeur, and Zoltan Kalo. The top journals in terms of number of articles (n=17) and citations (n=1,673) were Value in Health and the Journal of Medical Systems, respectively. The research hotspots mainly included the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), decision-making, health technology assessment, and healthcare waste management. In the recent literature there was more emphasis on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarities to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Big data, telemedicine, TOPSIS, and the fuzzy AHP, which are well-developed and important themes, may be the trends in future research. Conclusions This study provides a holistic picture of the MCDA-related literature published in health care. MCDA has a broad application in different topic areas and would be helpful for practitioners, researchers, and decision makers working in health care when faced with complex decisions. It can be argued that the door is still open for improving the role of MCDA in health care, both in its technologies and its application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.367 | 0.206 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".