Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27380992›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Comparison of large networks with sub-sampling strategies.

Waqar Ali, Anatol E Wegner, Robert E Gaunt, Charlotte M Deane, Gesine Reinert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Waqar AliDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, 24-29 St: Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.
Anatol E WegnerDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, 24-29 St: Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.
Robert E GauntDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, 24-29 St: Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.
Charlotte M DeaneDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, 24-29 St: Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.
Gesine ReinertDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, 24-29 St: Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Networks are routinely used to represent large data sets, making the comparison of networks a tantalizing research question in many areas. Techniques for such analysis vary from simply comparing network summary statistics to sophisticated but computationally expensive alignment-based approaches. Most existing methods either do not generalize well to different types of networks or do not provide a quantitative similarity score between networks. In contrast, alignment-free topology based network similarity scores empower us to analyse large sets of networks containing different types and sizes of data. Netdis is such a score that defines network similarity through the counts of small sub-graphs in the local neighbourhood of all nodes. Here, we introduce a sub-sampling procedure based on neighbourhoods which links naturally with the framework of network comparisons through local neighbourhood comparisons. Our theoretical arguments justify basing the Netdis statistic on a sample of similar-sized neighbourhoods. Our tests on empirical and synthetic datasets indicate that often only 10% of the neighbourhoods of a network suffice for optimal performance, leading to a drastic reduction in computational requirements. The sampling procedure is applicable even when only a small sample of the network is known, and thus provides a novel tool for network comparison of very large and potentially incomplete datasets.

Identifiers

PMID27380992
PMCPMC4933923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.