We investigated competitive conditions in global value chains (GVCs) for a period of fifteen years (2000–2014), focusing on sector structure, countries’ dominance and diversification. For this purpose, we used data from the World Input–Output Database (WIOD) and examined GVCs as weighted directed networks, where countries are the nodes and value added flows are the edges. We compared the in-and out-weighted degree centralization of the sectoral GVC networks in order to detect the most centralized, on the import or export side, respectively (oligopsonies and oligopolies). Moreover, we examined the in- and out-weighted degree centrality and the in- and out-weight entropy in order to determine whether dominant countries are also diversified. The empirical results reveal that diversification (entropy) and dominance (degree) are not correlated. Dominant countries (rich) become more dominant (richer). Diversification is not conditioned by competitiveness.

A key parameter when investing is Time Horizon. One of the biggest mistakes investors make is not aligning the timeline of their goals with their investment portfolio. In other words, time horizons determine the investment portfolio you should construct. We examine which portfolios are the best for long-term investing, short-term investing, and intraday trading. This study presents a novel approach for portfolio construction based on Network Science. We use daily returns of stocks that compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) for a 25-year period from 1998 to 2022. Stock networks are estimated from (i) Pearson correlation (undirected linear statistical correlations), as well as (ii) Transfer Entropy (directed non-linear causal relationships). Portfolios are constructed in two main ways: (a) only four stocks are selected, depending on their centrality, with Markowitz investing weights, or (b) all stocks are selected with centrality-based investing weights. Portfolio performance is evaluated in terms of the following indicators: return, risk (total and systematic), and risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio and Treynor ratio). Results are compared against two benchmarks: the index DJIA, and the Markowitz portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory. The key findings are as follows: (1) Peripheral portfolios of low centrality stocks based on Pearson correlation network are the best in the long-term, achieving an extremely high cumulative return of around 3000% as well as high risk-adjusted return; (2) Markowitz portfolio is the safest in the long-term, while on the contrary, central portfolios of high centrality stocks based on Pearson correlation network are the riskiest; (3) In times of crisis, no portfolio is always the best. However, portfolios based on Transfer Entropy network perform better in most of the crises; (4) Portfolios of all stocks selected with centrality-based investing weights outperform in both short-term investing and intraday trading. A stock brokerage company may utilize the above findings of our work to enhance its portfolio management services.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a boom in demand for personal protective equipment, or so-called “COVID-19 goods”, around the world. We investigate three key sectoral global value chain networks, namely, “chemicals”, “rubber and plastics”, and “textiles”, involved in the production of these goods. First, we identify the countries that export a higher value added share than import, resulting in a “value added surplus”. Then, we assess their value added flow diversification using entropy. Finally, we analyze their egonets in order to identify their key affiliates. The relevant networks were constructed from the World Input-Output Database. The empirical results reveal that the USA had the highest surplus in “chemicals”, Japan in “rubber and plastics”, and China in “textiles”. Concerning value added flows, the USA was highly diversified in “chemicals”, Germany in “rubber and plastics”, and Italy in “textiles”. From the analysis of egonets, we found that the USA was the key supplier in all sectoral networks under consideration. Our work provides meaningful conclusions about trade outperformance due to the fact of surplus, trade flow robustness due to the fact of diversification, and trade partnerships due to the egonets analysis.

What is the impact of geopolitics on the geometry of global trade? What is the key structural role that led to the emergence of the US–China trade bipolarity? Here, we study the geometry of international trade, taking into account not only the direct but also the indirect trade relations. We consider the self-weight of each country as an indicator of its intrinsic robustness to exogenous shocks. We assess the vulnerability of a country to potential demand or supply shocks based on the entropy (diversification) of its trade flows. By considering the indirect trade relations, we found that the key structural role that led to the emergence of the US–China trade bipolarity is that of the intermediary hub that acts as a “bridge” between different trade clusters. The US and China occupied key network positions of high betweenness centrality as early as 2010. As international trade was increasingly dependent on only these two intermediary trade hubs, this fact led to geopolitical tensions such as the US–China trade war. Therefore, betweenness centrality could serve as a structural indicator, forewarning of possible upcoming geopolitical tensions. The US–China trade bipolarity is also strongly present in self-weights, where a race in terms of their intrinsic robustness to exogenous shocks is more than evident. It is also interesting that the US and China are not only the top shock spreaders but also the most susceptible to shocks. However, China can act more as a shock spreader than a shock receiver, while for the USA, the opposite is true. Regarding the impact of geopolitics, we found that the Russia–Ukraine conflict forced Ukraine to diversify both its exports and imports, aiming to lower its vulnerability to possible shocks. Finally, we found that international trade is becoming increasingly oligopolistic, even when indirect trade relationships are taken into account, thus indicating that a “Deep Oligopoly” has formed.

Radiomics has shown great promise in predicting various diseases. Researchers have previously attempted to include radiomics in their automated detection, diagnosis, and segmentation algorithms, taking these steps based on the promising outcomes of radiomics-based studies. As a result of the increased attention given to this topic, numerous institutions have developed their own radiomics software. These packages, on the other hand, have been utilized interchangeably without regard for their fundamental differences. The primary purpose of this study was to explore benefits of predictive model performance for radiation pneumonitis (RP), which is the most frequent side effect of chest radiotherapy, and through this work, we developed a radiomics model based on deep learning that intends to increase RP prediction performance by combining more data points and digging deeper into these data. In order to evaluate the most popular machine learning models, radiographic characteristics were used, and we recorded the most important of them. The high dimensionality of radiomic datasets is a major issue. The method proposed for use in data problems is the synthetic minority oversampling technique, which we used in order to create a balanced dataset by leveraging suitable hardware and open-source software. The present study assessed the efficacy of various machine learning models, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and deep neural network (DNN), in predicting radiation pneumonitis by utilizing specific radiomics features. The findings of the study indicate that the four models displayed satisfactory efficacy in forecasting radiation pneumonitis. The DNN model demonstrated the highest area under the receiver operating curve (AUC-ROC) value, which was 0.87, suggesting its superior predictive capacity among the models considered. The AUC-ROC values for the random forest, SVM, and logistic regression models were 0.85, 0.83, and 0.81, respectively.