ArticlePloS one2025
Backbone extraction through statistical edge filtering: A comparative study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A solution to generalized learning from small training sets found in infants' repeated visual experiences of individual objects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Exploring weighted network backbone extraction: A comparative analysis of structural techniques.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The backbone extraction process is pivotal in expediting analysis and enhancing visualization in network applications. This study systematically compares seven influential statistical hypothesis-testing backbone edge filtering methods (Disparity Filter (DF), Polya Urn Filter (PF), Marginal Likelihood Filter (MLF), Noise Corrected (NC), Enhanced Configuration Model Filter (ECM), Global Statistical Significance Filter (GloSS), and Locally Adaptive Network Sparsification Filter (LANS)) across diverse networks. A similarity analysis reveals that backbones extracted with the ECM and DF filters exhibit minimal overlap with backbones derived from their alternatives. Interestingly, ordering the other methods from GloSS to NC, PF, LANS, and MLF, we observe that each method's output encapsulates the backbone of the previous one. Correlation analysis between edge features (weight, degree, betweenness) and the test significance level reveals that the DF and LANS filters favor high-weighted edges while ECM assigns them lower significance to edges with high degrees. Furthermore, the results suggest a limited influence of the edge betweenness on the filtering process. The backbones global properties analysis (edge fraction, node fraction, weight fraction, weight entropy, reachability, number of components, and transitivity) identifies three typical behavior types for each property. Notably, the LANS filter preserves all nodes and weight entropy. In contrast, DF, PF, ECM, and GloSS significantly reduce network size. The MLF, NC, and ECM filters preserve network connectivity and weight entropy. Distribution analysis highlights the PU filter's ability to capture the original weight distribution. NC filter closely exhibits a similar capability. NC and MLF filters excel for degree distribution. These insights offer valuable guidance for selecting appropriate backbone extraction methods based on specific properties.
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.