The application of exponential random graph models to collaboration networks in biomedical and health sciences: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collaboration has become crucial in solving scientific problems in biomedical and health sciences. There is a growing interest in applying social network analysis to professional associations aiming to leverage expertise and resources for optimal synergy. As a set of computational and statistical methods for analyzing social networks, exponential random graph models (ERGMs) examine complex collaborative networks due to their uniqueness of allowing for non-independent variables in network modeling. This study took a review approach to collect and analyze ERGM applications in health sciences by following the protocol of a systematic review. We included a total of 30 studies. The bibliometric characteristics revealed significant authors, institutions, countries, funding agencies, and citation impact associated with the publications. In addition, we observed five types of ERGMs for network modeling (standard ERGM and its extensions—Bayesian ERGM, temporal ERGM, separable temporal ERGM, and multilevel ERGM). Most studies (80%) used the standard ERGM, which possesses only endogenous and exogenous variables examining either micro- (individual-based) or macro-level (organization-based) collaborations without exploring how the links between individuals and organizations contribute to the overall network structure. Our findings help researchers (a) understand the extant research landscape of ERGM applications in health sciences, (b) learn to control and predict connection occurrence in a collaborative network, and (c) better design ERGM-applied studies to examine complex relations and social system structure, which is native to professional collaborations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it