ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
Monitoring resilience in bursts.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 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.
- Early warning signals for loss of control in complex systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The possibility to anticipate critical transitions through detecting loss of resilience has attracted attention in many fields. Resilience indicators rely on the mathematical concept of critical slowing down, which means that a system recovers more slowly from external perturbations when it gets closer to tipping point. This decrease in recovery rate can be reflected in rising autocorrelation and variance in data. To test whether resilience is changing, resilience indicators are often calculated using a moving window in long, continuous time series of the system. However, for some systems, it may be more feasible to collect several high-resolution time series in short periods of time, i.e., in bursts. Resilience indicators can then be calculated to detect a change of resilience between such bursts. Here, we compare the performance of both methods using simulated data and showcase the possible use of bursts in a case study using mood data to anticipate depression in a patient. With the same number of data points, the burst approach outperformed the moving window method, suggesting that it is possible to downsample the continuous time series and still signal an upcoming transition. We suggest guidelines to design an optimal sampling strategy. Our results imply that using bursts of data instead of continuous time series may improve the capacity to detect changes in resilience. This method is promising for a variety of fields, such as human health, epidemiology, or ecology, where continuous monitoring can be costly or unfeasible.
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.