ArticlePhysical review. E2017
Accurate ranking of influential spreaders in networks based on dynamically asymmetric link weights.
Article in Physical review. E, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant-Derived Nutraceuticals in Mental Health and Brain Function: Mechanisms of Action and Therapeutic Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Budget-aware local influence iterative algorithm for efficient influence maximization in social networks.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Tolerability of Lemon Balm (Nutrients · 2024Review
- A computational approach for the discovery of significant cancer genes by weighted mutation and asymmetric spreading strength in networks.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose an efficient and accurate measure for ranking spreaders and identifying the influential ones in spreading processes in networks. While the edges determine the connections among the nodes, their specific role in spreading should be considered explicitly. An edge connecting nodes i and j may differ in its importance for spreading from i to j and from j to i. The key issue is whether node j, after infected by i through the edge, would reach out to other nodes that i itself could not reach directly. It becomes necessary to invoke two unequal weights w_{ij} and w_{ji} characterizing the importance of an edge according to the neighborhoods of nodes i and j. The total asymmetric directional weights originating from a node leads to a novel measure s_{i}, which quantifies the impact of the node in spreading processes. An s-shell decomposition scheme further assigns an s-shell index or weighted coreness to the nodes. The effectiveness and accuracy of rankings based on s_{i} and the weighted coreness are demonstrated by applying them to nine real-world networks. Results show that they generally outperform rankings based on the nodes' degree and k-shell index while maintaining a low computational complexity. Our work represents a crucial step towards understanding and controlling the spread of diseases, rumors, information, trends, and innovations in networks.
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.