Bayesian spatial methods for small-area injury analysis: a study of geographical variation of falls in older people in the Wellington–Dufferin–Guelph health region of Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine falls in older people in the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph (WDG) health region of Ontario, Canada, and to identify areas with excess RR and associated risk factors, particularly those related to private dwellings. METHODS: Cases of hospitalisation following falls among older people in the WDG health region between 2002 and 2006 were geocoded to the dissemination area level and used in the spatial analysis. The falls data and covariates from the 2006 Canadian census were analysed using Poisson log-linear models with (spatial and non-spatial) random effects at the dissemination area level. A Bayesian approach with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation allowed the spatial random effects models to be fitted. Map decomposition was used to visualise the results. RESULTS: The percentage of occupied private dwellings requiring repairs and median income were significantly associated with falls in older people in the WDG health region. Twenty-six dissemination areas with high RR of falls in older people in the WDG health region were identified. Map decomposition revealed that RR were also driven by unknown factors that have spatial patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This research identified an association between falls in older people and housing conditions; the higher the percentage of dwellings requiring repairs in an area, the higher its risk of falls in older people. Bayesian spatial modelling accounts for measurement errors and unobserved or unknown risk factors that have spatial patterns. The findings have the potential to contribute to future research in reducing falls in older people and generate more interest in using Bayesian spatial modelling approaches in injury and public health research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".