Risk assessment of organ transplant operation: A fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy FMEA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, most fatal diseases are attributed to the malfunction of bodily. Sometimes organ transplantation is the only possible therapy, for instance for patients with end-stage liver diseases, and the preferred treatment, for instance for patients with end-stage renal diseases. However, this surgical procedure comes with inherent risks and effectively managing these risks to minimize the likelihood of complications arising from organ transplantation (maximizing life years from transplant and quality-adjusted life years) is crucial. To facilitate this process, risk ranking is used to identify and promptly address potential risks. Over recent years, considerable efforts have been made, and various approaches have been proposed to enhance Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In this study, taking into account the uncertainty in linguistic variables (F-FMEA), we introduce an approach based on Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision Making (F-MCDM) for effectively evaluating scenarios and initial failure hazards. Nevertheless, the results of ranking failure modes generated by different MCDM methods may vary. This study is a retrospective study that suggests a comprehensive unified risk assessment model, integrating multiple techniques to produce a more inclusive ranking of failure modes. Exploring a broad spectrum of risks associated with organ transplant operations, we identified 20 principal hazards with the assistance of literature and experts. We developed a questionnaire to examine the impact of various critical factors on the survival of transplanted organs, such as irregularities in immunosuppressive drug consumption, inappropriate dietary habits, psychological disorders, engaging in strenuous activities post-transplant, neglecting quarantine regulations, and other design-related factors. Subsequently, we analyzed the severity of their effects on the durability of transplanted organs. Utilizing the Mamdani algorithm as a fuzzy inference engine and the Center of Gravity algorithm for tooling, we expressed the probability and severity of each risk. Finally, the failure mode ranking obtained from the F-FMEA method, three fuzzy MCDM methods, and the proposed combined method were identified. Additionally, the results obtained from various methods were evaluated by an expert team, demonstrating that the highest consistency and effectiveness among different methods are attributed to the proposed method, as it achieved a 91.67% agreement with expert opinions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".