A Study on Decision-Making for Treatment Options of Suspected Cancerous Lesions of Thyroid Nodules Based on the Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term, Interval Probability and Prospect Theory

  • Yueyu LiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1001)


Examination techniques of modern high-resolution color Doppler are able to detect the suspected cancerous lesions of thyroid nodules of less than 10 mm at an early stage. At this time, the biggest concern of the patient is whether the suspected lesion will become cancerous. To prevent cancerization, how should the patient choose possible treatment options? Most of the patient’s decision-making information comes from the doctors, and the initial diagnostic information given by the doctors may be indecisive, vague and a probability range, or even a diagnosis opposite to the truth. In this paper, a multi-attribute decision-making method based on the hesitant fuzzy linguistic term, interval probability and prospect theory is constructed to help patients make decisions in the form of linguistic evaluation terms and interval probability. Finally, the effectiveness of the method is illustrated by a case analysis.


Thyroid nodules Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term Interval probability Prospect theory Multi-attribute decision-making Decision logic 



This research is supported by 2017 Research Project of Humanities and Social Science of Education Ministry: Research of medical guidance service system based on the cognitive behavior of patients on medical guidance (Project No.: 17YJA630048) and Project of basic scientific research business fee for the Central Universities, Sichuan University (Project No.: skzx2016-sb37, skzx2017-sb221).


  1. 1.
    Birnbaum, M.H.: Empirical evaluation of third-generation prospect theory. Theory Decis. 84(2), 1–17 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buyukozkan, G., Gler, M.: A hesitant fuzzy based topsis approach for smart glass evaluation (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, Y.W., Yang, J.B. et al.: Inference analysis and adaptive training for belief rule based systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(10), 12,845–12,860 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, C., Zhu, C.: Risky decision-making method under the condition of interval probability information (in chinese). Control Decis. 8, 15–16 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan, Z.P., Chen, F.D., Zhang, X.: Method for interval multiple attribute decision-making considering decision-maker’s psychological behavior. J. Northeast. Univ. 32(1), 136–139 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gao, J., Liu, H.: Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria decision-making method based on prospect theory. Technoecon. Manag. Res. 44(1), 25–42 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garg, H., Arora, R.: A nonlinear-programming methodology for multi-attribute decision-making problem with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets information. Appl. Intell. 14, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jalayer, M., Azheian, M., Kermani, M.A.M.A.: A hybrid algorithm based on community detection and multi attribute decision making for influence maximization. Comput. Ind. Eng. 120, 234–250 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiang, J., Li, X., et al.: Weapon system capability assessment under uncertainty based on the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(11), 13,773–13,784 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang, W.: Interval multi-criteria decision-making approach based on prospect theory and statistic deduction. Control Decis. 2015(2), 375–379 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahneman, D.: Rospect theory: analysis of decision ender risk. Economerria 47, 263–291 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liao, H., Xu, Z., Zeng, X.J.: Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their application in multi-criteria decision making. Inf. Sci. 271(3), 125–142 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liao, H., Xu, Z., et al.: Qualitative decision making with correlation coefficients of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Knowl.-Based Syst. 76(1), 127–138 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, M.: Bayes decision-making method based on probability interval. Syst. Eng.-Theory Pract. 11, 79–82 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., et al.: Decision support framework for risk management on sea ports and terminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(5), 5087–5103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy, R.O., Brincke, R.H.: Hierarchical maximum likelihood parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory: Improving the reliability of individual risk parameter estimates. SSRN Electron. J. (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peng, L.I., Liu, S.F., Zhu, J.J.: Intuitionistic fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria decision-making methods based on prospect theory. Control Decis. 27(11), 1601–1606 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang, J.Q., Sun, T., Chen, X.H.: Multi-criteria fuzzy decision-making method based on prospect theory with incomplete information. Control Decis. 24(8), 1198–1202 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, Z.: Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making. Omega 33(3), 249–254 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yager, R.R.: On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. Read. Fuzzy Sets Intell. Syst. 18(1), 80–87 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yager, R.R.: Owa aggregation over a continuous interval argument with applications to decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man & Cybernetics Part B Cybernetics A Publication of the IEEE Systems Man & Cybernetics Society 34(5), 1952–63 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yager, R.R., Kreinovich, V.: Decision making under interval probabilities. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 22(3), 195–215 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations