ArticleScientific reports2026
Leveraging content producer networks and user perception to detect online discursive communities.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Online discussions are often characterized by strong behavioral asymmetries: a relatively small fraction of users actively produces content, while the majority primarily consumes and redistributes it. Here we propose a community-detection framework for online social networks that exploits this asymmetry by first identifying and clustering a set of leading users, and then extending the resulting labels to the broader user base. We introduce two complementary strategies to cluster leaders, one based on their mutual interactions and the other on audience overlap, both relying on entropy-based filtering to separate signal from noise. We evaluate the framework on three major Italian political debates on Twitter/X, using public figures-identified through the pre-2022 verification system-as leaders, and known affiliations of political actors as ground truth labels. Compared with standard baselines, the proposed approach yields more coherent and interpretable communities aligned with political structures, with the two variants respectively recovering parties and coalitions. Activity-based criteria for selecting leaders produce qualitatively similar but consistently weaker results, particularly at the coalition level. Overall, our findings show that creating statistically validated networks of publicly recognized figures, whose off-platform roles constrain and stabilize their online behavior, provides a strong basis to identify discursive communities on social media. Although developed for Twitter/X, the approach is conceptually general, as it leverages structural asymmetries common to many online platforms.
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.