Enhancing safety and risk management through an integrated spherical fuzzy approach for managing laboratory errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital hazards and human errors pose a significant and complex problem, with rising incidents and irreversible consequences. Managing laboratory errors and risks is vital due to the presence of chemicals, electrical equipment, and the involvement of students, professors, and staff. The high value of laboratory equipment further underscores the need for robust risk management strategies. To address these challenges, researchers have explored the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method for risk identification and assessment in healthcare settings. However, recognizing its limitations, this study aims to prioritize and evaluate laboratory errors using an integrated approach that combines the Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Complex Proportional Assessment with a Fuzzy Spherical Environment (CoCoSo-FSE). By applying the BWM, criteria such as severity, detectability, and occurrence probability are weighted to account for the nature of laboratory errors. The CoCoSo-FSE is then employed to evaluate and prioritize 18 identified laboratory errors, reducing uncertainty and enhancing decision-making. The fuzzy spherical set is used to address uncertainties by providing a flexible framework for decision-makers to define membership functions in specific spherical regions, enhancing the representation of knowledge and decision-making information. The proposed approach is compared with other decision-making methods, namely MOORA and COPRAS, demonstrating reliable ranking results. Sensitivity analysis confirms the stability of the approach's ranking when adjusting the flexibility parameter. This integrated approach offers a reliable and robust decision-making technique for managing laboratory errors, providing valuable insights to enhance laboratory safety and risk management for stakeholders, managers, and policymakers.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".