Skew‐elliptical spatial random effect modeling for areal data with application to mapping health utilization rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed models incorporating spatially correlated random effects are often used for the analysis of areal data. In this setting, spatial smoothing is introduced at the second stage of a hierarchical framework, and this smoothing is often based on a latent Gaussian Markov random field. The Markov random field provides a computationally convenient framework for modeling spatial dependence; however, the Gaussian assumption underlying commonly used models can be overly restrictive in some applications. This can be a problem in the presence of outliers or discontinuities in the underlying spatial surface, and in such settings, models based on non-Gaussian spatial random effects are useful. Motivated by a study examining geographic variation in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome, we develop a robust model for smoothing small-area health service utilization rates. The model incorporates non-Gaussian spatial random effects, and we develop a formulation for skew-elliptical areal spatial models. We generalize the Gaussian conditional autoregressive model to the non-Gaussian case, allowing for asymmetric skew-elliptical marginal distributions having flexible tail behavior. The resulting new models are flexible, computationally manageable, and can be implemented in the standard Bayesian software WinBUGS. We demonstrate performance of the proposed methods and comparisons with other commonly used Gaussian and non-Gaussian spatial prior formulations through simulation and analysis in our motivating application, mapping rates of revascularization for patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome in Quebec, Canada.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".