ArticleScientific reports2026
Targeted spreader identification via lexicographic core decomposition.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.