Balancing quality, cost, and uncertainty in pharmaceutical supply chain: A robust possibilistic flexible programming approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmaceutical supply chain (PSC) plays a crucial role in ensuring the timely and reliable availability of essential drugs while maintaining high-quality standards. Balancing the triad of cost, time, and quality is paramount in optimizing the complexities of this supply chain. In this research, a multi-objective PSC optimization model is developed to maximize the key business factors. The dynamic nature of the PSC can significantly compromise the effectiveness of the decision making process. To deal with this challenge, a robust possibilistic flexible programming approach (RPFPA) solution methodology is proposed. This methodology provides a robust and flexible framework to tackle the uncertainties within the supply chain. To validate the proposed model and methodology, a computational analysis of a case study is conducted. The results of the analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of the model and methodology in addressing the uncertainties and complexities of the PSC. Specifically, the findings reveal that by accepting a 23.8% increase in costs, decision-makers can achieve a desirable level of robustness in their decisions. Moreover, the study identifies that the assignment of higher priority to cost objectives leads to more centralized decisions within the supply chain, while a greater emphasis on quality objectives results in a more decentralized approach. By employing the proposed approach, decision-makers can efficiently deal with the complexities and uncertainties inherent in the PSC, making well-informed choices that balance cost, time, and quality.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".