Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41087488›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Ideology and polarization set the agenda on social media.

Edoardo Loru, Alessandro Galeazzi, Anita Bonetti, Emanuele Sangiorgio, Niccolò Di Marco, Matteo Cinelli, Max Falkenberg, Andrea Baronchelli, Walter Quattrociocchi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Edoardo LoruDepartment of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. edoardo.loru@uniroma1.it.
Alessandro GaleazziDepartment of Mathematics, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Anita BonettiDepartment of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Emanuele SangiorgioDepartment of Social Sciences and Economics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Niccolò Di MarcoDepartment of Legal, Social, and Educational Sciences, Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy.
Matteo CinelliDepartment of Computer Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Max FalkenbergDepartment of Network & Data Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria.
Andrea BaronchelliDepartment of Mathematics, City St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Walter QuattrociocchiDepartment of Computer Science, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. walter.quattrociocchi@uniroma1.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The abundance of information on social media has reshaped public discussions, shifting attention to the mechanisms that drive online discourse. This study analyzes large-scale Twitter (now X) data from three global debates-Climate Change, COVID-19, and the Russo-Ukrainian War-to investigate the structural dynamics of engagement. Our findings reveal that discussions are not primarily shaped by specific categories of actors, such as media or activists, but by shared ideological alignment. Users consistently form polarized communities, where their ideological stance in one debate predicts their positions in others. This polarization transcends individual topics, reflecting a broader pattern of ideological divides. Furthermore, the influence of individual actors within these communities appears secondary to the reinforcing effects of selective exposure and shared narratives. Overall, our results underscore that ideological alignment, rather than actor prominence, plays a central role in structuring online discourse and shaping the spread of information in polarized environments.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaClimate ChangeHumansSARS-CoV-2Ideological AlignmentOnline DiscourseOnline EngagementPolarizationPublic DebatesSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID41087488
PMCPMC12521695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.