ArticleScientific reports2025
Heterogeneous update processes shape information cascades in social networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Public behavioral compliance challenges in household medical waste management: an evolutionary game perspective on policy.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A common assumption in the literature on information diffusion is that populations are homogeneous regarding individuals' information acquisition and propagation process: Individuals update their informed and actively communicating state either through imitation (simple contagion) or peer influence (complex contagion). Here, we study the impact of the mixing and placement of individuals with different update processes on how information cascades in social networks. We consider Simple Spreaders, which take information from a random neighbor and communicate it, and Threshold-based Spreaders, which require a threshold number of active neighbors to change their state to active communication. Even though, in a population made exclusively of Simple Spreaders, information reaches all elements of any (connected) network, we show that, when Simple and Threshold-based Spreaders coexist and occupy random positions in a social network, the number of Simple Spreaders systematically amplifies the cascades only in degree heterogeneous networks (exponential and scale-free). In random and modular structures, this cascading effect originated by Simple Spreaders only exists above a critical mass of these individuals. In contrast, when Threshold-based Spreaders are assorted preferentially in the nodes with a higher degree, the cascading effect of Simple Spreaders vanishes, and the spread of information is drastically impaired. Overall, the study highlights the significance of the strategic placement of different roles in networked structures, with Simple Spreaders driving widespread cascades in heterogeneous networks and Threshold-based Spreaders playing a critical regulatory role in information spread with a tunable effect based on the threshold value. These effects have consequences to our understanding of social phenomena, such as the spread of innovations in heterogeneous social systems with the presence of eager (Simple Spreaders) versus averse (Threshold-based Spreaders) adopters, but also to information warfare on social media where Simple Spreaders can be seen as embedded agents (e.g., bots) used to amplify the virality of ill-intended content and, oppositely, Threshold-based Spreaders as an essential self-regulatory element of social systems operating as information filters.
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.