ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparing alternatives to the fixed degree sequence model for extracting the backbone of bipartite projections.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Backbone 3.0: An R package for extracting network backbones.PloS one · 2026Article
- A multilevel network approach to revealing patterns of online political selective exposure.PloS one · 2025Article
- Exploring weighted network backbone extraction: A comparative analysis of structural techniques.PloS one · 2025Article
- Proper network randomization is key to assessing social balance.Science advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Illustrating the importance of edge constraints in backbones of bipartite projections.PloS one · 2024Article
- An evaluation tool for backbone extraction techniques in weighted complex networks.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Urban economic fitness and complexity from patent data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Where do knowledge-intensive firms locate in Germany?-An explanatory framework using exponential random graph modeling.Jahrbuch fur Regionalwissenschaftt = Review of regional research · 2023Article
- Bow-tie structures of twitter discursive communities.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- backbone: An R package to extract network backbones.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Projections of bipartite or two-mode networks capture co-occurrences, and are used in diverse fields (e.g., ecology, economics, bibliometrics, politics) to represent unipartite networks. A key challenge in analyzing such networks is determining whether an observed number of co-occurrences between two nodes is significant, and therefore whether an edge exists between them. One approach, the fixed degree sequence model (FDSM), evaluates the significance of an edge's weight by comparison to a null model in which the degree sequences of the original bipartite network are fixed. Although the FDSM is an intuitive null model, it is computationally expensive because it requires Monte Carlo simulation to estimate each edge's p value, and therefore is impractical for large projections. In this paper, we explore four potential alternatives to FDSM: fixed fill model, fixed row model, fixed column model, and stochastic degree sequence model (SDSM). We compare these models to FDSM in terms of accuracy, speed, statistical power, similarity, and ability to recover known communities. We find that the computationally-fast SDSM offers a statistically conservative but close approximation of the computationally-impractical FDSM under a wide range of conditions, and that it correctly recovers a known community structure even when the signal is weak. Therefore, although each backbone model may have particular applications, we recommend SDSM for extracting the backbone of bipartite projections when FDSM is impractical.
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.