Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42337070›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Targeted spreader identification via lexicographic core decomposition.

Arianna D'Ulizia, Alessia D'Andrea, Riccardo Denni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Arianna D'UliziaConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy.
Alessia D'AndreaConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy. alessia.dandrea@irpps.cnr.it.
Riccardo DenniConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Centrality measures quantify node importance, but they typically evaluate it globally across an entire network. However, nodes often belong to distinct categories, and a user analyzing influence may prioritize certain categories over others. It is therefore natural to evaluate node importance according to a specific preference ranking of these categories. To address this, we extend standard core decomposition and the well-known peeling algorithm to a lexicographic setting, introducing lexicographic core decomposition and lexipeeling, which we show is a special case of weighted node core decomposition. We evaluate lexipeeling against 79 baselines on 7 real-world networks. Lexipeeling ranks the true top spreader higher than any other baseline on 5 of 7 datasets, with MRR ranging from 0.478 on iPhone-Samsung to 1.0 on PolBlogs, PolBooks, and LastFM-Asia. However, like standard coreness, it assigns the same rank to many nodes, so weak spreaders may appear among the highest ranked ones. To address this, we propose composite methods that break lexipeeling's ties using a secondary measure. Among these, lexipeeling-degree most reliably places truly influential nodes among its highest ranked ones across all datasets. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/rdenni/Lexicoreness.

Indexed as

Centrality measuresComplex networksCore decompositionEpidemic spreadingInfluential nodes

Identifiers

PMID42337070
PMCPMC13578758

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.