Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36107952›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

On network backbone extraction for modeling online collective behavior.

Carlos Henrique Gomes Ferreira, Fabricio Murai, Ana P C Silva, Martino Trevisan, Luca Vassio, Idilio Drago, Marco Mellia, Jussara M Almeida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Carlos Henrique Gomes FerreiraDepartment of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9107-6884
Fabricio MuraiDepartment of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4487-6381
Ana P C SilvaDepartment of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5951-3562
Martino TrevisanDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Luca VassioDepartment of Control and Computer Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2920-1856
Idilio DragoDepartment of Computer Science, Università di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Marco MelliaDepartment of Control and Computer Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1859-6693
Jussara M AlmeidaDepartment of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9142-2919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collective user behavior in social media applications often drives several important online and offline phenomena linked to the spread of opinions and information. Several studies have focused on the analysis of such phenomena using networks to model user interactions, represented by edges. However, only a fraction of edges contribute to the actual investigation. Even worse, the often large number of non-relevant edges may obfuscate the salient interactions, blurring the underlying structures and user communities that capture the collective behavior patterns driving the target phenomenon. To solve this issue, researchers have proposed several network backbone extraction techniques to obtain a reduced and representative version of the network that better explains the phenomenon of interest. Each technique has its specific assumptions and procedure to extract the backbone. However, the literature lacks a clear methodology to highlight such assumptions, discuss how they affect the choice of a method and offer validation strategies in scenarios where no ground truth exists. In this work, we fill this gap by proposing a principled methodology for comparing and selecting the most appropriate backbone extraction method given a phenomenon of interest. We characterize ten state-of-the-art techniques in terms of their assumptions, requirements, and other aspects that one must consider to apply them in practice. We present four steps to apply, evaluate and select the best method(s) to a given target phenomenon. We validate our approach using two case studies with different requirements: online discussions on Instagram and coordinated behavior in WhatsApp groups. We show that each method can produce very different backbones, underlying that the choice of an adequate method is of utmost importance to reveal valuable knowledge about the particular phenomenon under investigation.

Indexed as

Mass GatheringsSocial MediaHumansKnowledge

Identifiers

PMID36107952
PMCPMC9477297

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.