An Examination of Three Spatial Event Cluster Detection Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spatial disease surveillance, geographic areas with large numbers of disease cases are to be identified, so that targeted investigations can be pursued. Geographic areas with high disease rates are called disease clusters and statistical cluster detection tests are used to identify geographic areas with higher disease rates than expected by chance alone. In some situations, disease-related events rather than individuals are of interest for geographical surveillance, and methods to detect clusters of disease-related events are called event cluster detection methods. In this paper, we examine three distributional assumptions for the events in cluster detection: compound Poisson, approximate normal and multiple hypergeometric (exact). The methods differ on the choice of distributional assumption for the potentially multiple correlated events per individual. The methods are illustrated on emergency department (ED) presentations by children and youth (age < 18 years) because of substance use in the province of Alberta, Canada, during 1 April 2007, to 31 March 2008. Simulation studies are conducted to investigate Type I error and the power of the clustering methods.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".