New setting is introduced to study failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Leaf-like is a key term to have these notions. Forcing a vertex to change its color is a type of approach to force that vertex to be zero-like. Forcing a vertex which is only neighbor for zero-like vertex to be zero-like vertex but now reverse approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which doesn’t force. LetNTG : (V,E,σ,μ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed zero-forcing number Z(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximal cardinality of a set S of black vertices (whereas vertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white vertex is converted to a black vertex if it is the only white neighbor of a black vertex. Failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number Zn(NTG) for a neutrosophic graphNTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximal neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of black vertices (whereas vertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black afterfinitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white vertex is converted to a black vertex if it is the only white neighbor of a black vertex. Failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number are about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, and t-partite-neutrosophic graphs are investigated in the terms of maximal set which forms both of failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. In path-neutrosophic graphs, the set of vertices such that every given two vertices in the set, have distance at least two, forms maximal set but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, the set of vertices such that every given two vertices in the set, have distance at least two, forms maximal set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices leads us to failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding only two vertices and containing center, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices from same parts makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices excluding two vertices from same parts makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set not to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form of failed zero-forcing number and failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to form failed zero-forcing number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed zero-forcing neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices don’t have unique connection together, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of different vertices. Neighbor is a key term to have these notions. Having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings leads to approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which have all vertices which are neighbors. Let NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed independent number I(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; failed independent neutrosophic-number In(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples and clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Independent Number,” and “Setting of Failed Independent Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices. In path-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors, form maximal set but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors forms maximal set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set of all vertices leads us to neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center and one other vertex, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from different parts makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of t vertices from different parts makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form of neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of vertices. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to neutrosophic failed-independent number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed independent neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connections amid each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' $\mathcal{Z}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ are colored white) such that $V(G)$ isn't turned black after finitely many applications of ``the color-change rule'': a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by ``1-'' about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a ``neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' $\mathcal{Z}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ are colored white) such that $V(G)$ isn't turned black after finitely many applications of ``the color-change rule'': a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by ``1-'' about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; a ``neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 11 Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 12 are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 13 SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 14 well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 15 shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 16 SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 17 SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 18 instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 19 figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 20 “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 21 make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 22 viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 23 individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 24 officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 25 “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 26 SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 27 Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28 to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 29 avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of 30 some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed 31 SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 32 is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 33 (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 34 turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 35 SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 36 SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 37 by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 38 SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 39 SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 40 is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 41 SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 42 that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 43 a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 44 1/128 white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 45 referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 46 white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 47 Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 48 SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 49 expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 50 |S ∩N(s)| > |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ, |S ∩N(s)| < |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ. The first Expression, 51 holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 52 “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 53 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 54 neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 55 neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > 56 |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 57 The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 58 second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 59 define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to 60 get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake 61 of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the 62 notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 63 SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 64 procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 65 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if 66 the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 67 HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 68 with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 69 Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 70 “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 71 HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 72 SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 73 and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 74 based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 75 foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 76 have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 77 officially called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed 78 SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 79 definition titled “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny 80 and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 81 SuperHyperClass based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having 82 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 83 “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed 84 SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 85 by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 86 the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 87 It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And 88 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if 89 the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 90 SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make 91 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic 92 SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 93 Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 94 SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 95 “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 96 SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 97 2/128 SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 98 holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 99 the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 100 amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 1-failed 101 SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 102 SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 103 Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 104 follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 105 SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 106 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 107 only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 108 SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 109 SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 110 SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 111 intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 112 separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one 113 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has 114 one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes 115 the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially 116 called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 117 SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 118 SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 119 between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 120 “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 121 indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 122 the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 123 will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the 124 definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the 125 cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 126 [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 127 identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 128 since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 129 the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 130 said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 131 happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 132 they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 133 and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 134 cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 135 SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 136 The aim is to find either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 137 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 138 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest 139 SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results 140 are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 141 only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 142 SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 143 any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 144 literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 145 theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a “Failed SCS Syndrome” in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups (“SCS + PNfS” group/n=6 vs “SCS only” group/n=8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the ”SCS+PNfS” group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the “SCS only” group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p=0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS+PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.

The multidimensionality of chronic pain forces us to look beyond isolated pain assessment such as pain intensity, which does not consider multiple key parameters, particularly in patients suffering from post-operative Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS-T2). Our ambition was to provide a novel Multi-dimensional Clinical Response Index (MCRI), including not only pain intensity but also functional capacity, anxiety-depression, quality of life and objective quantitative pain mapping assessments, the objective being to capture patient condition instantaneously, using machine learning techniques. Two hundred PSPS-T2 patients were enrolled in a real-life observational prospective PREDIBACK study with 12-month follow-up and received various treatments. From a multitude of questionnaires/scores, specific items were combined using exploratory factor analyses to create an optimally accurate MCRI; as a single composite index, using pairwise correlations between measurements, it appeared to better represent all pain dimensions than any other classical score. It appeared to be the best compromise among all existing indexes, showing the highest sensitivity/specificity related to Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Novel composite indexes could help to refine pain assessment by changing the physician’s perception of patient condition on the basis of objective and holistic metrics, and by providing new insights to therapy efficacy/patient outcome assessments, before ultimately being adapted to other pathologies.