Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34282531›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2022

Disentangling relationships in symptom networks using matrix permutation methods.

Michael J Brusco, Douglas Steinley, Ashley L Watts

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Michael J BruscoFlorida State University, Tallahassee, USA.
Douglas SteinleyUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, USA. steinleyd@missouri.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9900-5028
Ashley L WattsUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, USA.

Funding

Refining the Diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder: A Comprehensive ApproachR01AA024133 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI SHER, KENNETH JAMES, STEINLEY, DOUGLAS L · 2015 to 2018
$2.1M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01AA024133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Common outputs of software programs for network estimation include association matrices containing the edge weights between pairs of symptoms and a plot of the symptom network. Although such outputs are useful, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain structural relationships among symptoms from these types of output alone. We propose that matrix permutation provides a simple, yet effective, approach for clarifying the order relationships among the symptoms based on the edge weights of the network. For directed symptom networks, we use a permutation criterion that has classic applications in electrical circuit theory and economics. This criterion can be used to place symptoms that strongly predict other symptoms at the beginning of the ordering, and symptoms that are strongly predicted by other symptoms at the end. For undirected symptom networks, we recommend a permutation criterion that is based on location theory in the field of operations research. When using this criterion, symptoms with many strong ties tend to be placed centrally in the ordering, whereas weakly-tied symptoms are placed at the ends. The permutation optimization problems are solved using dynamic programming. We also make use of branch-search algorithms for extracting maximum cardinality subsets of symptoms that have perfect structure with respect to a selected criterion. Software for implementing the dynamic programming algorithms is available in MATLAB and R. Two networks from the literature are used to demonstrate the matrix permutation algorithms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwarePsychometricsdominance indexdynamic programmingmatrix permutationnetwork matricesRobinson indexsymptom networks

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.