Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42724155›Full record

ReviewLa matematica2026

Speaking of Opinions: Comparing Approaches to Modelling Opinion Manipulation.

Luisa Estrada, Sasha Glendinning, Andrew Nugent

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in La matematica, 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.

Luisa Estrada *Department of Mathematics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-2126-331X
Sasha Glendinning *Department of Mathematics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-4699-8443
Andrew NugentDepartment of Mathematics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0009-0004-8943-6958

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review outlines the major approaches to modelling opinion formation and manipulation in mathematics and computer science. Key tools such as ordinary and partial differential equations, stochastic models, control theory, and interaction protocols are introduced and compared as methods for describing manipulation. The review is divided into models that use a continuous opinion space and those that use discrete opinions, with the advantages and disadvantages of each discussed. Particular emphasis is placed on bounded-confidence models in continuous opinion dynamics and on binary opinion models in the discrete setting. Finally, the authors provide an interdisciplinary perspective on opinion dynamics and its social significance.

Indexed as

Control theoryInteraction protocolsManipulationOpinion dynamics

Identifiers

PMID42724155
PMCPMC13558312

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.