ArticlePloS one2024
How strong is strong? The challenge of interpreting network edge weights.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From class effects to specificity FAERS evidence and network mapping of adverse events in NSCLC targeted therapy.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Moderation Effects of Race on the Relationship Among Sex Hormones, Biomarkers, and Psychological Symptoms in Female Older Adults.Clinical nursing research · 2025Article
- Natural language processing reveals network structure of pain communication in social media using discrete mathematical analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Weighted networks are information-rich and highly-flexible, but they can be difficult to analyze because the interpretation of edges weights is often ambiguous. Specifically, the meaning of a given edge's weight is locally contingent, so that a given weight may be strong for one dyad, but weak for other dyad, even in the same network. I use backbone models to distinguish strong and weak edges in a corpus of 110 weighted networks, and used the results to examine the magnitude of this ambiguity. Although strong edges have larger weights than weak edges on average, a large fraction of edges' weights provide ambiguous information about whether it is strong or weak. Based on these results, I recommend that strong edges should be identified by applying an appropriate backbone model, and that once strong edges have been identified using a backbone model, their original weights should not be directly interpreted or used in subsequent analysis.
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.