Comparison of tests for spatial heterogeneity on data with global clustering patterns and outliers
Tóm tắt
The ability to evaluate geographic heterogeneity of cancer incidence and mortality is important in cancer surveillance. Many statistical methods for evaluating global clustering and local cluster patterns are developed and have been examined by many simulation studies. However, the performance of these methods on two extreme cases (global clustering evaluation and local anomaly (outlier) detection) has not been thoroughly investigated. We compare methods for global clustering evaluation including Tango's Index, Moran's I, and Oden's I*
pop
; and cluster detection methods such as local Moran's I and SaTScan elliptic version on simulated count data that mimic global clustering patterns and outliers for cancer cases in the continental United States. We examine the power and precision of the selected methods in the purely spatial analysis. We illustrate Tango's MEET and SaTScan elliptic version on a 1987-2004 HIV and a 1950-1969 lung cancer mortality data in the United States. For simulated data with outlier patterns, Tango's MEET, Moran's I and I*
pop
had powers less than 0.2, and SaTScan had powers around 0.97. For simulated data with global clustering patterns, Tango's MEET and I*
pop
(with 50% of total population as the maximum search window) had powers close to 1. SaTScan had powers around 0.7-0.8 and Moran's I has powers around 0.2-0.3. In the real data example, Tango's MEET indicated the existence of global clustering patterns in both the HIV and lung cancer mortality data. SaTScan found a large cluster for HIV mortality rates, which is consistent with the finding from Tango's MEET. SaTScan also found clusters and outliers in the lung cancer mortality data. SaTScan elliptic version is more efficient for outlier detection compared with the other methods evaluated in this article. Tango's MEET and Oden's I*
pop
perform best in global clustering scenarios among the selected methods. The use of SaTScan for data with global clustering patterns should be used with caution since SatScan may reveal an incorrect spatial pattern even though it has enough power to reject a null hypothesis of homogeneous relative risk. Tango's method should be used for global clustering evaluation instead of SaTScan.
Tài liệu tham khảo
McCullagh P, Nelder JA: Generalized Linear Models. 1989, London: Chapman and Hall
Kulldorff M, Feuer EJ, Miller BA, Freedman LS: Breast cancer clusters in the northeast United States: a geographic analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1997, 146 (2): 161-70.
Pickle LW, Heineman EF, Ward MH, Nuckols JR, Gumpertz ML, Bell BS, editors: Applications of GIS to cancer research at the National Cancer Institute. ESRI International Health geographics conference; 2001; Washington DC. 2001
Wheeler D: A comparison of spatial clustering and cluster detection techniques for childhood leukemia incidence in Ohio, 1996-2003. International Journal of Health Geographics. 2007, 6 (13):
Waller LA, Hill EG, Rudd RA: The geography of power: statistical performance of tests of clusters and clustering in heterogeneous populations. Stat Med. 2006, 25 (5): 853-65. 10.1002/sim.2418.
Song C, Kulldorff M: Power evaluation of disease clustering tests. Int J Health Geogr. 2003, 2 (1): 9-10.1186/1476-072X-2-9.
Kulldorff M, Tango T, Park PJ: Power comparisons for disease clustering tests. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 2003, 42 (4): 665-84. 10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00160-3.
Tango T: Comparison of general tests for spatial clustering. Disease Mapping and Risk Assessment of Public Health. Edited by: Lawson. 1999, London: Wiley
Hanson C, Wieczorek W: Alcohol mortality: a comparison of spatial clustering methods. Social Science and Medicine. 2002, 55 (5): 791-802. 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00203-9.
Fotheringham AS, Zhan FB: A comparison of three exploratory methods for cluster detection in spatial point patterns. Geographical analysis. 1996, 28 (3): 200-18.
Tango T: A test for spatial disease clustering adjusted for multiple testing. Stat Med. 2000, 19 (2): 191-204. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000130)19:2<191::AID-SIM281>3.0.CO;2-Q.
Kulldorff M, Song C, Gregorio D, Samociuk H, DeChello L: Cancer map patterns: are they random or not?. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 30 (2 Suppl): S37-49. 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.009.
Moran PAP: Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena Biometrika. 1950, 37: 17-23.
Oden N: Adjusting Moran's I for population density. Stat Med. 1995, 14 (1): 17-26. 10.1002/sim.4780140104.
Kulldorff M: A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics. Theory and Methods. 1997, 25 (22): 3929-43.
Huang L, Pickle L, Das B: Evaluating spatial methods for investigating global and cluster detection for cancer cases. Statistics in Medicine. 2008, 27 (25): 5111-42. 10.1002/sim.3342.
Duczmal L, Kulldorff M, Lan H: Evaluation of Spatial Scan Statistics for Irregularly Shaped Clusters. Journal of Computational & Graphical Statistics. 2006, 15 (2): 15-10.1198/106186006X112396.
Kulldorff M: Tests of spatial randomness adjusted for an inhomogeneity: a general framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2006, 101 (475): 1289-305. 10.1198/016214506000000618.
Waller LA, Gotway CA: Applied Statistics for Public Health Data. 2004, New York: Wiley
Tango T: A class of tests for detecting 'general' and 'focused' clustering of rare diseases. Stat Med. 1995, 14 (21-22): 2323-34. 10.1002/sim.4780142105.
Song C, Kulldorff M: Tango's maximized excess events test with different weights. Int J Health Geogr. 2005, 4: 32-10.1186/1476-072X-4-32.
Griffith DA: Some guidelines for specifying the geographic weight matrix contained in spatial statistical methods. Practical Handbook of Spatial Statistics. Edited by: Arlinghaus SL. 1996, Boca Raton: CRC Press
Simonson H: Headbang software. Statistical Research Applications Branch, NCI: Version 3. 2003
Szarfman A, Machado SG, O'Neill RT: Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf. 2002, 25 (6): 381-92. 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00001.