A Gaussian random field model for similarity-based smoothing in Bayesian disease mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditionally specified Gaussian Markov random field (GMRF) models with adjacency-based neighbourhood weight matrix, commonly known as neighbourhood-based GMRF models, have been the mainstream approach to spatial smoothing in Bayesian disease mapping. In the present paper, we propose a conditionally specified Gaussian random field (GRF) model with a similarity-based non-spatial weight matrix to facilitate non-spatial smoothing in Bayesian disease mapping. The model, named similarity-based GRF, is motivated for modelling disease mapping data in situations where the underlying small area relative risks and the associated determinant factors do not vary systematically in space, and the similarity is defined by "similarity" with respect to the associated disease determinant factors. The neighbourhood-based GMRF and the similarity-based GRF are compared and accessed via a simulation study and by two case studies, using new data on alcohol abuse in Portugal collected by the World Mental Health Survey Initiative and the well-known lip cancer data in Scotland. In the presence of disease data with no evidence of positive spatial correlation, the simulation study showed a consistent gain in efficiency from the similarity-based GRF, compared with the adjacency-based GMRF with the determinant risk factors as covariate. This new approach broadens the scope of the existing conditional autocorrelation models.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".