ArticleiScience2023
"Stealing fire or stacking knowledge" by machine intelligence to model link prediction in complex networks.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simplicity within biological complexity.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Link prediction of heterogeneous complex networks based on an improved embedding learning algorithm.PloS one · 2025Article
- Inconsistency among evaluation metrics in link prediction.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- The maximum capability of a topological feature in link prediction.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Hyperbolic matrix factorization improves prediction of drug-target associations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current methodologies to model connectivity in complex networks either rely on network scientists' intelligence to discover reliable physical rules or use artificial intelligence (AI) that stacks hundreds of inaccurate human-made rules to make a new one that optimally summarizes them together. Here, we provide an accurate and reproducible scientific analysis showing that, contrary to the current belief, stacking more good link prediction rules does not necessarily improve the link prediction performance to nearly optimal as suggested by recent studies. Finally, under the light of our novel results, we discuss the pros and cons of each current state-of-the-art link prediction strategy, concluding that none of the current solutions are what the future might hold for us. Future solutions might require the design and development of next generation "creative" AI that are able to generate and understand complex physical rules for us.
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.