↓ Skip to main content

Can longitudinal generalized estimating equation models distinguish network influence and homophily? An agent-based modeling approach to measurement characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
18 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Can longitudinal generalized estimating equation models distinguish network influence and homophily? An agent-based modeling approach to measurement characteristics
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0274-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kori Sauser Zachrison, Theodore J. Iwashyna, Achamyeleh Gebremariam, Meghan Hutchins, Joyce M Lee

Abstract

Connected individuals (or nodes) in a network are more likely to be similar than two randomly selected nodes due to homophily and/or network influence. Distinguishing between these two influences is an important goal in network analysis, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses of longitudinal dyadic network data are an attractive approach. It is not known to what extent such regressions can accurately extract underlying data generating processes. Therefore our primary objective is to determine to what extent, and under what conditions, does the GEE-approach recreate the actual dynamics in an agent-based model. We generated simulated cohorts with pre-specified network characteristics and attachments in both static and dynamic networks, and we varied the presence of homophily and network influence. We then used statistical regression and examined the GEE model performance in each cohort to determine whether the model was able to detect the presence of homophily and network influence. In cohorts with both static and dynamic networks, we find that the GEE models have excellent sensitivity and reasonable specificity for determining the presence or absence of network influence, but little ability to distinguish whether or not homophily is present. The GEE models are a valuable tool to examine for the presence of network influence in longitudinal data, but are quite limited with respect to homophily.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 16%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 7 28%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,580,093
of 24,532,617 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#200
of 2,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,969
of 430,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,532,617 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.