Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41068490›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2026

Statistical evidence in psychological networks.

Karoline B S Huth, Jonas M B Haslbeck, Sara Keetelaar, Ruth J van Holst, Maarten Marsman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Psychometric Network Model Recovery: The Effect of Sample Size, Number of Items, and Number of Nodes.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  17. Network analysis of loneliness, mental, and physical health in Czech adolescents.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Karoline B S HuthDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. k.huth@uva.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0662-1591
Jonas M B HaslbeckDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9096-7837
Sara KeetelaarDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ruth J van HolstDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC-University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1184-9355
Maarten MarsmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5309-7502

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychometric network models have become increasingly popular in psychology and the social sciences as tools to explore multivariate data. In these models, constructs are represented as networks of observed variables, and researchers often interpret the presence or absence of edges as evidence for or against conditional associations between variables. However, the statistical evidence supporting these edges is rarely evaluated. Here we show that a large proportion of reported network findings is based on weak or inconclusive evidence. We reanalysed 293 networks from 126 published papers using a Bayesian approach that quantifies the evidence for each edge. Across the studies, one-third of edges showed inconclusive evidence (1/3 < inclusion Bayes factor (BF

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPsychologyPsychometricsBayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalHumans

Identifiers

PMID41068490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.