ArticleStatistics in medicine2013
Inference for influence over multiple degrees of separation on a social network.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social networks and health: a systematic review of sociocentric network studies in low- and middle-income countries.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2015Pooled it
- Trial
- Social connections and the healthfulness of food choices in an employee population.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Semi-Parametric Estimation and Inference for the Mean Outcome of the Single Time-Point Intervention in a Causally Connected Population.Journal of causal inference · 2017Article
- Social Relationships and Obesity: Benefits of Incorporating a Lifecourse Perspective.Current obesity reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
States and behaviors of different individuals are expected to be correlated across a social network. Christakis and Fowler have proposed a 'three degrees of influence rule' to characterize the extent of such dependence. In this paper, we discuss three distinct interpretations of such a rule, one involving only associations (which is the interpretation for which Christakis and Fowler give evidence), one involving actual causation, generally referred to as contagion or social influence, and one involving direct effects. We discuss analytic procedures appropriate for assessing evidence for each possible interpretation and the increasingly difficult methodological challenges present in each interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.