Abstract

BackgroundIndividual point data can be analyzed against an entire cohort instead of only sampled controls to accurately picture the geographic distribution of populations at risk for low prevalence diseases. Analyzed as individual points, many smaller clusters with high relative risks (RR) and low empirical p values are indistinguishable from a random distribution. When points are aggregated into areal units, small clusters may result in a larger cluster with a low RR or be lost if divided into pieces included in units of larger populations that show no increased prevalence. Previous simulation studies showed lowered validity of spatial scan tests for true clusters with low RR. Using simulations, this study explored the effects of low cluster RR and areal unit size on local area clustering test (LACT) results, proposing a procedure to improve accuracy of cohort spatial analysis for rare events.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated the relationship of true RR to observed RR and p values with various, randomly located, cluster shapes, areal unit sizes and scanning window shapes in a diverse population distribution. Clusters with RR < 1.7 had elevated observed RRs and high p values.We propose a cluster identification procedure that applies parallel multiple LACTs, one on point data and three on two distinct sets of areal units created with varying population parameters that minimize the range of population sizes among units. By accepting only clusters identified by all LACTs, having a minimum population size, a minimum relative risk and a maximum p value, this procedure improves the specificity achieved by any one of these tests alone on a cohort study of low prevalence data while retaining sensitivity for small clusters. The procedure is demonstrated on two study regions, each with a five-year cohort of births and cases of a rare developmental disorder.ConclusionFor truly exploratory research on a rare disorder, false positive clusters can cause costly diverted research efforts. By limiting false positives, this procedure identifies 'crude' clusters that can then be analyzed for known demographic risk factors to focus exploration for geographically-based environmental exposure on areas of otherwise unexplained raised incidence.

Highlights

  • Individual point data can be analyzed against an entire cohort instead of only sampled controls to accurately picture the geographic distribution of populations at risk for low prevalence diseases

  • Simulations Simulation set 1: Effect of areal unit population size As with any test, the effectiveness of spatial tests for various data may be evaluated based on its sensitivity (SE = locations in true cluster identified as being in a cluster by a local area clustering test (LACT)/all locations in the true cluster), specificity (SP = locations not in the cluster that are identified as not being in the cluster by a LACT/all locations not in the true cluster) and whether there are strong influences due to a few cases

  • For the rectangular cluster simulations with relative risks (RR) > 1.5, the elliptical scan median SP was a little higher than the circular scan's, though overall median SP is lower for this cluster shape

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Individual point data can be analyzed against an entire cohort instead of only sampled controls to accurately picture the geographic distribution of populations at risk for low prevalence diseases. This study explored the effects of low cluster RR and areal unit size on local area clustering test (LACT) results, proposing a procedure to improve accuracy of cohort spatial analysis for rare events. Spatial analysis is being used increasingly to generate hypotheses for non-infectious diseases As such, it has an important role examining putative environmental risk factors for disorders with uncertain etiology. Simulation studies have further questioned the power of spatial cluster detection methods, especially when the cluster is irregularly shaped [6,7,8,9,10], located near borders or areas of low population density [2] or the elevated relative risk (RR = incidence proportion inside the cluster/incidence proportion outside the cluster) is small [2,8,11]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call