Application of Three Focused Cluster Detection Methods to Study Geographic Variation in the Incidence of Multiple Sclerosis in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Macroscopic geographic variation in the incidence and prevalence of MS is well-recognized. Microscopic geographic variation in the distribution of MS is also recognized, but less well-studied. Most studies have focused on prevalent cases of MS, although studies of variation in disease incidence are more relevant for developing etiologic hypotheses. We aimed to study geographic variation in the incidence of MS using three different methods. METHODS: We used population-based administrative (health claims) data to identify 2,290 incident cases of MS in the province of Manitoba, Canada from 1990 to 2006. We applied three focused cluster-detection procedures, including the circular spatial scan statistic (CSS), flexible spatial scan statistic (FSS), and Bayesian disease mapping (BYM), to the dataset. RESULTS: The CSS and FSS methods identified 30 and 26 regions as potential clusters, respectively, although the regions identified differed slightly due to the non-circular shape of some regions in Manitoba. The BYM approach identified 37 regions as potential clusters, again with some differences as compared to the other two methods. Twelve regions were identified as potential clusters by all three methods. All methods identified the western part of the city of Winnipeg as a significant cluster. Using the BYM approach, the incidence of MS was highest among areas of higher socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Two methods CSS and FSS only capture geographical variations and are not able to control for confounders at the same time which may lead to mis-identification of clusters. However, the BYM method can simultaneously identify geographical variations and control for possible confounders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".