Selection of smartphone-based mobile applications for obesity management using an interval neutrosophic vague decision-making framework

IF 7.5 2区 计算机科学 Q1 AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS
{"title":"Selection of smartphone-based mobile applications for obesity management using an interval neutrosophic vague decision-making framework","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The selection of mobile applications for managing obesity poses a complex multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) challenge. This complexity arises from the diverse criteria of the apps, their respective values, and the need to determine the relative importance of these criteria. Therefore, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by evaluating smartphone-based mobile applications for obesity management through the development of a novel MCDM selection framework. The decision matrix formulates the quality assessment criteria and identifies smartphone applications for diagnosing obesity. In the research methodology, the MCDM solution is presented by integrating two methods: the interval neutrosophic vague-based fuzzy-weighted zero-consistency (INV-FWZIC) method for weighting the quality assessment criteria and the interval neutrosophic vague-based fuzzy decision by opinion score method (INV-FDOSM) for selecting smartphone applications for obesity. The results indicate that the ‘technology-enhanced features’ and ‘usability’ criteria received the highest equal weight score (<em>0.2183</em>), while the criterion of ‘behavior change techniques’ received the lowest weight (<em>0.1783</em>). The group decision-making results show that Application <em>A</em><sub><em>1</em></sub> (<em>Noom Weight Loss Coach</em>) is the best, with a score of <em>0.6869</em>, while Application <em>A</em><sub><em>7</em></sub> (<em>Cronometer</em>) is the worst, with the lowest score of <em>0.6165</em>. Various assessment approaches, including systematic ranking, reliability and validity analyses, sensitivity analysis, and comparison analysis, are employed to evaluate and validate the proposed framework.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50523,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197624013496","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The selection of mobile applications for managing obesity poses a complex multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) challenge. This complexity arises from the diverse criteria of the apps, their respective values, and the need to determine the relative importance of these criteria. Therefore, this study contributes to the body of knowledge by evaluating smartphone-based mobile applications for obesity management through the development of a novel MCDM selection framework. The decision matrix formulates the quality assessment criteria and identifies smartphone applications for diagnosing obesity. In the research methodology, the MCDM solution is presented by integrating two methods: the interval neutrosophic vague-based fuzzy-weighted zero-consistency (INV-FWZIC) method for weighting the quality assessment criteria and the interval neutrosophic vague-based fuzzy decision by opinion score method (INV-FDOSM) for selecting smartphone applications for obesity. The results indicate that the ‘technology-enhanced features’ and ‘usability’ criteria received the highest equal weight score (0.2183), while the criterion of ‘behavior change techniques’ received the lowest weight (0.1783). The group decision-making results show that Application A1 (Noom Weight Loss Coach) is the best, with a score of 0.6869, while Application A7 (Cronometer) is the worst, with the lowest score of 0.6165. Various assessment approaches, including systematic ranking, reliability and validity analyses, sensitivity analysis, and comparison analysis, are employed to evaluate and validate the proposed framework.

利用区间中性模糊决策框架选择基于智能手机的肥胖管理移动应用程序
选择管理肥胖症的移动应用程序是一项复杂的多标准决策(MCDM)挑战。这种复杂性源于应用程序的不同标准、各自的价值以及确定这些标准相对重要性的需要。因此,本研究通过开发一种新颖的 MCDM 选择框架,对基于智能手机的肥胖症管理移动应用程序进行评估,从而为相关知识体系做出贡献。决策矩阵制定了质量评估标准,并确定了用于诊断肥胖症的智能手机应用程序。在研究方法中,通过整合两种方法提出了 MCDM 解决方案:用于质量评估标准加权的基于区间中性模糊的模糊加权零一致性方法(INV-FWZIC)和用于选择肥胖症智能手机应用程序的基于区间中性模糊的模糊决策意见分方法(INV-FDOSM)。结果表明,"技术增强功能 "和 "可用性 "标准的等权重得分最高(0.2183),而 "行为改变技术 "标准的权重最低(0.1783)。分组决策结果显示,应用程序 A1(Noom 减肥教练)最好,得分为 0.6869,而应用程序 A7(Cronometer)最差,得分为 0.6165。我们采用了多种评估方法,包括系统排序、信度和效度分析、灵敏度分析和对比分析,来评估和验证所提出的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
505
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is pivotal in driving the fourth industrial revolution, witnessing remarkable advancements across various machine learning methodologies. AI techniques have become indispensable tools for practicing engineers, enabling them to tackle previously insurmountable challenges. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence serves as a global platform for the swift dissemination of research elucidating the practical application of AI methods across all engineering disciplines. Submitted papers are expected to present novel aspects of AI utilized in real-world engineering applications, validated using publicly available datasets to ensure the replicability of research outcomes. Join us in exploring the transformative potential of AI in engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信