A scoping review of spatial cluster analysis techniques for point-event data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial cluster analysis is a uniquely interdisciplinary endeavour, and so it is important to communicate and disseminate ideas, innovations, best practices and challenges across practitioners, applied epidemiology researchers and spatial statisticians. In this research we conducted a scoping review to systematically search peer-reviewed journal databases for research that has employed spatial cluster analysis methods on individual-level, address location, or x and y coordinate derived data. To illustrate the thematic issues raised by our results, methods were tested using a dataset where known clusters existed. Point pattern methods, spatial clustering and cluster detection tests, and a locally weighted spatial regression model were most commonly used for individual-level, address location data (n = 29). The spatial scan statistic was the most popular method for address location data (n = 19). Six themes were identified relating to the application of spatial cluster analysis methods and subsequent analyses, which we recommend researchers to consider; exploratory analysis, visualization, spatial resolution, aetiology, scale and spatial weights. It is our intention that researchers seeking direction for using spatial cluster analysis methods, consider the caveats and strengths of each approach, but also explore the numerous other methods available for this type of analysis. Applied spatial epidemiology researchers and practitioners should give special consideration to applying multiple tests to a dataset. Future research should focus on developing frameworks for selecting appropriate methods and the corresponding spatial weighting schemes.
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 | 0.034 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".