ArticleJournal of intelligent information systems2010
A performance evaluation framework for association mining in spatial data.
Article in Journal of intelligent information systems, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of the process of mining associations is an important and challenging problem in database systems and especially those that store critical data and are used for making critical decisions. Within the context of spatial databases we present an evaluation framework in which we use probability distributions to model spatial regions, and Bayesian networks to model the joint probability distribution and the structural relationships among spatial and non-spatial predicates. We demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework by evaluating representatives from two well-known approaches that are used for learning associations, i.e., dependency analysis (using statistical tests of independence) and Bayesian methods. By controlling the parameters of the framework we provide extensive comparative results of the performance of the two approaches. We obtain measures of recovery of known associations as a function of the number of samples used, the strength, number and type of associations in the model, the number of spatial predicates associated with a particular non-spatial predicate, the prior probabilities of spatial predicates, the conditional probabilities of the non-spatial predicates, the image registration error, and the parameters that control the sensitivity of the methods. In addition to performance we investigate the processing efficiency of the two approaches.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.