Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34645850›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

On the statistical significance of communities from weighted graphs.

Zengyou He, Wenfang Chen, Xiaoqi Wei, Yan Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Zengyou HeSchool of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China. zyhe@dlut.edu.cn.
Wenfang ChenSchool of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China.
Xiaoqi WeiSchool of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China.
Yan LiuSchool of Software, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community detection is a fundamental procedure in the analysis of network data. Despite decades of research, there is still no consensus on the definition of a community. To analytically test the realness of a candidate community in weighted networks, we present a general formulation from a significance testing perspective. In this new formulation, the edge-weight is modeled as a censored observation due to the noisy characteristics of real networks. In particular, the edge-weights of missing links are incorporated as well, which are specified to be zeros based on the assumption that they are truncated or unobserved. Thereafter, the community significance assessment issue is formulated as a two-sample test problem on censored data. More precisely, the Logrank test is employed to conduct the significance testing on two sets of augmented edge-weights: internal weight set and external weight set. The presented approach is evaluated on both weighted networks and un-weighted networks. The experimental results show that our method can outperform prior widely used evaluation metrics on the task of individual community validation.

Identifiers

PMID34645850
PMCPMC8514603

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.