Boston University Libraries OpenBU
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    View Item 
    •   OpenBU
    • School of Public Health
    • Department of Biostatistics
    • SPH Biostatistics Papers
    • View Item
    •   OpenBU
    • School of Public Health
    • Department of Biostatistics
    • SPH Biostatistics Papers
    • View Item

    Cluster Detection Methods Applied to the Upper Cape Cod Cancer Data

    Thumbnail
    License
    Copyright 2005 Ozonoff et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    Date Issued
    2005-9-15
    Publisher Version
    10.1186/1476-069X-4-19
    Author(s)
    Ozonoff, Al
    Webster, Thomas
    Vieira, Veronica
    Weinberg, Janice
    Ozonoff, David
    Aschengrau, Ann
    Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare by Email
    Export Citation
    Download to BibTex
    Download to EndNote/RefMan (RIS)
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Permanent Link
    https://hdl.handle.net/2144/2579
    Citation (published version)
    Ozonoff, Al, Thomas Webster, Veronica Vieira, Janice Weinberg, David Ozonoff, Ann Aschengrau. "Cluster detection methods applied to the Upper Cape Cod cancer data" Environmental Health 4:19. (2005)
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: A variety of statistical methods have been suggested to assess the degree and/or the location of spatial clustering of disease cases. However, there is relatively little in the literature devoted to comparison and critique of different methods. Most of the available comparative studies rely on simulated data rather than real data sets. METHODS: We have chosen three methods currently used for examining spatial disease patterns: the M-statistic of Bonetti and Pagano; the Generalized Additive Model (GAM) method as applied by Webster; and Kulldorff's spatial scan statistic. We apply these statistics to analyze breast cancer data from the Upper Cape Cancer Incidence Study using three different latency assumptions. RESULTS: The three different latency assumptions produced three different spatial patterns of cases and controls. For 20 year latency, all three methods generally concur. However, for 15 year latency and no latency assumptions, the methods produce different results when testing for global clustering. CONCLUSION: The comparative analyses of real data sets by different statistical methods provides insight into directions for further research. We suggest a research program designed around examining real data sets to guide focused investigation of relevant features using simulated data, for the purpose of understanding how to interpret statistical methods applied to epidemiological data with a spatial component.
    Rights
    Copyright 2005 Ozonoff et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    Collections
    • SPH Environmental Health Papers and Presentations [91]
    • SPH Epidemiology Papers [104]
    • SPH Biostatistics Papers [126]


    Boston University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Help
     

     

    Browse

    All of OpenBUCommunities & CollectionsIssue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionIssue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    Deposit Materials

    LoginNon-BU Registration

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Boston University
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | Help