ArticlePloS one2024
Is 'distinctiveness centrality' actually distinctive? A comment on Fronzetti Colladon and Naldi (2020).
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Effect of the COVID Pandemic on Clinical Psychology Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinctiveness centrality, which was proposed in 2020 to identify nodes that are connected to poorly-connected neighbors, is simply a minor variation on two existing centrality measures: beta centrality proposed in 1987, and gamma centrality proposed in 2011. In toy, empirical, and generated networks, I show that these three centrality measures yield identical node rankings under nearly all circumstances. Researchers seeking to identify nodes that are connected to poorly-connected others should not use distinctiveness centrality, and instead should use either beta or gamma centrality because they are more widely-known in the literature, are more flexible, and are computationally simpler. Additionally, researchers should be cautious when proposing new centrality measures, taking care to avoid duplicating measures that already exist.
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.