Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40392791›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Exploring weighted network backbone extraction: A comparative analysis of structural techniques.

Ali Yassin, Hocine Cherifi, Hamida Seba, Olivier Togni

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ali YassinLIB, Université Bourgogne Europe, Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6821-6076
Hocine CherifiICB UMR 6303 CNRS - Université Bourgogne Europe - Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9124-4921
Hamida SebaUniv Lyon, UCBL, CNRS, INSA Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205, Villeurbanne, France.
Olivier TogniLIB, Université Bourgogne Europe, Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9510-3595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Backbone extraction simplifies complex networks while retaining essential features. It reduces complexity without losing critical structural information. However, selecting the most suitable method remains challenging due to the diverse behaviors of existing techniques. This study evaluates eight structural backbone extraction methods designed for weighted networks. These methods leverage network topology rather than statistical weight distributions. A dataset of 33 real-world networks is analyzed, covering diverse sizes, topologies, and domains. Key metrics, such as Jaccard similarity and Overlap Coefficient, reveal distinct method behaviors. A hierarchical relationship emerges among methods. Primary Linkage Analysis (PLAM) captures the most substantial edges, forming the simplest backbone. Minimum Spanning Tree (MSP), Ultrametric Backbone (UMB), and Metric Backbone (MB) build on this structure, progressively adding connectivity and detail. The Doubly Stochastic Filter excels at preserving weight and degree distributions, connectivity, and transitivity. By contrast, the H-Backbone prioritizes high-weight edges but disrupts connectivity. Metric Backbone and Planar Maximally Filtered Graph ensure complete node preservation and maintain high reachability. These insights advance the understanding of structural backbone extraction techniques for weighted networks. They benefit applications in fields like biology, social networks, and transportation. Practitioners can better achieve goals like network simplification for visualization or property preservation for analysis.

Identifiers

PMID40392791
PMCPMC12091788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.