Abstract

In cluster detection of disease, the use of local cluster detection tests (CDTs) is current. These methods aim both at locating likely clusters and testing for their statistical significance. New or improved CDTs are regularly proposed to epidemiologists and must be subjected to performance assessment. Because location accuracy has to be considered, performance assessment goes beyond the raw estimation of type I or II errors. As no consensus exists for performance evaluations, heterogeneous methods are used, and therefore studies are rarely comparable. A global indicator of performance, which assesses both spatial accuracy and usual power, would facilitate the exploration of CDTs behaviour and help between-studies comparisons. The Tanimoto coefficient (TC) is a well-known measure of similarity that can assess location accuracy but only for one detected cluster. In a simulation study, performance is measured for many tests. From the TC, we here propose two statistics, the averaged TC and the cumulated TC, as indicators able to provide a global overview of CDTs performance for both usual power and location accuracy. We evidence the properties of these two indicators and the superiority of the cumulated TC to assess performance. We tested these indicators to conduct a systematic spatial assessment displayed through performance maps.

Highlights

  • Assessing performance of local cluster detection tests (CDTs) is a complex but necessary task

  • To assess CDTs performance, we propose two statistics of the Tanimoto coefficient (TC), both taking into account location accuracy and usual power in simulation studies

  • For relative risks (RR) = 6 with I = 2.26%, RR = 3 with I = 2.26% and RR = 6 with I = 0.48%, the TCc was lower than the TCa in 100%, 74.7% and 75.6% of simulations, respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Assessing performance of local cluster detection tests (CDTs) is a complex but necessary task. For development of new statistical methods, simulation studies are obviously essential. In field investigation, they provide useful knowledge for interpretation of real data and decision making [1]. From a methodological point of view, there is still no commonly accepted protocol for simulation studies in spatial epidemiology. Evaluations are often incomplete as they are conducted only on a few clustering models which are defined by arbitrary settings that.

Methods
Results
Conclusion

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.