The use of mixture models for identifying high risks in disease mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional approaches for estimating risks in disease mapping or mortality studies are based on Poisson inference. Frequently, overdispersion is present and this extra variability is modelled by introducing random effects. In this paper we compare two computationally simple approaches for incorporating random effects: one based on a non-parametric mixture model assuming that the population arises from a discrete mixture of Poisson distributions, and the second using a Poisson-normal mixture model which allows for spatial autocorrelation. The comparison is focused on how well each of these methods identify the regions which have high risks. Such identification is important because policy makers may wish to target regions associated with such extreme risks for financial assistance while epidemiologists may wish to target such regions for further study. The Poisson-normal mixture model is presented from both a frequentist, or empirical Bayes, and a fully Bayesian point of view. We compare results obtained with the parametric and non-parametric models specifically in terms of detecting extreme mortality risks, using infant mortality data of British Columbia, Canada, for the period 1981-1985, breast cancer data from Sardinia, for the period 1983-1987, and Scottish lip cancer data for 1975-1980. However, we also investigate the performance of these models in a simulation study. The key finding is that discrete mixture models seem to be able to locate regions which experience high risks; normal mixture models also work well in this regard, and perform substantially better when spatial autocorrelation is present.
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 | 0.020 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".