MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808303723 · doi:10.1186/s12942-018-0137-9

A log-Weibull spatial scan statistic for time to event data

2018· article· en· W2808303723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Iram Usman, Rhonda J. Rosychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Geographics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsScan statisticWeibull distributionStatisticsStatisticCensoring (clinical trials)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spatial scan statistics have been used for the identification of geographic clusters of elevated numbers of cases of a condition such as disease outbreaks. These statistics accompanied by the appropriate distribution can also identify geographic areas with either longer or shorter time to events. Other authors have proposed the spatial scan statistics based on the exponential and Weibull distributions. RESULTS: We propose the log-Weibull as an alternative distribution for the spatial scan statistic for time to events data and compare and contrast the log-Weibull and Weibull distributions through simulation studies. The effect of type I differential censoring and power have been investigated through simulated data. Methods are also illustrated on time to specialist visit data for discharged patients presenting to emergency departments for atrial fibrillation and flutter in Alberta during 2010-2011. We found northern regions of Alberta had longer times to specialist visit than other areas. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed the spatial scan statistic for the log-Weibull distribution as a new approach for detecting spatial clusters for time to event data. The simulation studies suggest that the test performs well for log-Weibull data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health GeographicsSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207