Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

An MADM approach to covering-based variable precision fuzzy rough sets: an application to medical diagnosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In medical diagnosis, how to select an optimal medicine from some medicines with similar efficacy values to treat diseases has become common problems between doctors and patients. To solve this problem, we describe it as a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) in a finite fuzzy covering approximation space. This paper aims to propose two pairs of covering-based variable precision fuzzy rough sets. By combining the proposed rough set model with the VIKOR method, we construct a novel method to medicine selection MADM problems in the context of medical diagnosis. A real-life case study of selecting a proper medicine to treat Alzheimer’s disease is given to demonstrate the practicality of our proposed method. Through a comparative analysis and an experimental analysis, we further explore the effectiveness and stability of the established method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. The bounded sum \(\bot _{P}(e,f)=e+f-e*f\) for each \(e, f\in [0,1]\)

References

  1. Behret H (2014) Group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 70:33–43

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. De Cock M, Cornelis C, Kerre E (2004) Fuzzy rough sets: beyond the obvious. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, vol 1, pp 103–108

  4. D’eer L, Cornelis C (2018) A comprehensive study of fuzzy covering-based rough set models: Definitions, properties and interrelationships. Fuzzy Sets Syst 336:1–26

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. D’eer L, Cornelis C, Godo L (2017) Fuzzy neighborhood operators based on fuzzy covering. Fuzzy Sets Syst 312:17–35

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dubois D, Prade H (1990) Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. Int J Gen Syst 17:191–209

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, Wallenius J, Zionts S (1992) Multiple criteria decision making, multi-attribute utility theory: the next ten years. Manag Sci 38:645–654

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan ZP, Zhang X, Chen FD, Liu Y (2013) Extended TODIM method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems. Knowl Based Syst 42:40–48

    Google Scholar 

  9. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gao C, Lai ZH, Zhou J, Zhao CR, Miao DQ (2018) Maximum decision entropy-based attribute reduction in decision-theoretic rough set model. Knowl Based Syst 143:179–191

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gomes L, Lima M (1992) TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found Comput Decis Sci 16:113–127

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Hadi-Vencheh A, Mirjaberi M (2014) Fuzzy inferior ratio method for multiple attribute decision making problems. Inf Sci 227:263–272

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63:309–321

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Jiang HB, Zhan JM, Chen DG (2019) Covering based variable precision (\(\cal{I}\), \(\cal{T}\))-fuzzy rough sets with applications to multi-attribute decision-making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(8):1558–1572

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kabak Ö, Ervural B (2017) Multiple attribute group decision making: a generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme. Knowl Based Syst 123:13–30

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li TJ, Leung Y, Zhang WX (2008) Generalized fuzzy rough approximation operators based on fuzzy coverings. Int J Approx Reason 48:836–856

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Liang DC, Xu ZS (2017) The new extension of TOPSIS method for multiple criteria decision making with hesitant Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 60:167–179

    Google Scholar 

  19. Liang DC, Xu ZS, Liu D, Wu Y (2018) Method for three-way decisions using ideal TOPSIS solutions at Pythagorean fuzzy information. Inf Sci 435:282–295

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Liao HC, Xu ZS (2014) Multi-criteria decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy PROMETHEE. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:1703–1717

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Ma LW (2016) Two fuzzy covering rough set models and their generalizations over fuzzy lattices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 294:1–17

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (2015) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications-two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl 42:4126–4148

    Google Scholar 

  23. Merigo JM, Gil-Lafuente AM (2010) New decision-making techniques and their application in the selection of financial products. Inf Sci 180:2085–2094

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade

  25. Opricovic S (2011) Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water rsources planning. Expert Syst Appl 38:12983–12990

    Google Scholar 

  26. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11:341–356

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Qiao JS, Hu BQ (2018) Granular variable precision \(L\)-fuzzy rough sets based on residuated lattices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 336:148–166

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Radzikowska AM, Kerre EE (2002) A comparative study of fuzzy rough sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 126:137–155

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Raza MS, Qamar U (2018) A parallel rough set based dependency calculation method for efficient feature selection. Appl Soft Comput 71:1020–1034

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sanayei A, Mousavi SF, Yazdankhah A (2010) Group decision making process for supplier selection with VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 37:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sun BZ, Chen X, Zhang L, Ma WM (2020) Three-way decision making approach to conflict analysis and resolution using probabilistic rough set over two universes. Inf Sci 507:809–822

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Walczak D, Rutkowska A (2017) Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method. Eur J Oper Res 260:706–714

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang CY, Hu BQ (2015) Granular variable precision fuzzy rough sets with general fuzzy relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 275:39–57

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu ZS, Da QL (2003) An overview of operators for aggregating information. Int J Intell Syst 18:953–969

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu WH, Yu JH (2017) A novel approach to information fusion in multi-source datasets: a granular computing viewpoint. Inf Sci 378:410–423

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18:183–190

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Yao YQ, Mi JS, Li ZJ (2014) A novel variable (\(\theta\), \(\sigma\))-fuzzy rough set model based on fuzzy granules. Fuzzy Sets Syst 236:58–72

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Yao YY (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf Sci 180:341–353

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Yao YY (2016) Three-way decision and cognitive computing. Cognit Comput 8(4):543–554

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yeung DS, Chen DG, Tsang ECC, Lee JWT, Wang XZ (2005) On the generalization of fuzzy rough sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13:343–361

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yu B, Cai MJ, Li QG (2019) A \(\lambda\)-rough set model and its applications with TOPSIS method to decision making. Knowl Based Syst 165:420–431

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Żakowski W (1983) Approximations in the space (\(U\),\(\Pi\)). Demonstr Math 16:761–769

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhan JM, Sun BZ, Alcantud JCR (2019) Covering based multigranulation (I, T)-fuzzy rough set models and applications in multi-attribute group decision-making. Inf Sci 476:290–318

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang K, Zhan JM, Wu WZ, Alcantud J (2019) Fuzzy \(\beta\)-covering based \((\cal{I},\cal{T})\)-fuzzy rough set models and applications to multi-attribute decision-making. Comput Ind Eng 128:605–621

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang K, Zhan JM, Yao YY (2019) TOPSIS method based on a fuzzy covering approximation space: an application to biological nano-materials selection. Inf Sci 502:297–329

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao SY, Tsang ECC, Chen DG (2009) The model of fuzzy variable precision rough sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17:451–467

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhao XR, Hu BQ (2015) Fuzzy variable precision rough sets based on residuated lattices. Int J Gen Syst 44:743–765

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Ziarko W (1993) Variable precision rough set model. J Comput Syst Sci 46:39–59

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is partially supported by NNSFC (61866011; 11961025; 11561023; 11461025; 71571090).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Hubei Minzu University, Enshi, 445000, China

    Haibo Jiang & Jianming Zhan

  2. School of Economics and Management, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710071, China

    Bingzhen Sun

  3. BORDA Research Unit and Multidisciplinary Institute of Enterprise (IME), University of Salamanca, 37007, Salamanca, Spain

    José Carlos R. Alcantud

Authors
  1. Haibo Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianming Zhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bingzhen Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José Carlos R. Alcantud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianming Zhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest to this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, H., Zhan, J., Sun, B. et al. An MADM approach to covering-based variable precision fuzzy rough sets: an application to medical diagnosis. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 11, 2181–2207 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01109-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01109-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation