Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29246157›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2017

Spatial smoothing in Bayesian models: a comparison of weights matrix specifications and their impact on inference.

Earl W Duncan, Nicole M White, Kerrie Mengersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health geographics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Regional variations and temporal trends of atopic diseases in Germany.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Temporal and spatial analysis of visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil, by age group and sex: an ecological study, 2013-2022.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Church Closings Were Associated with Higher COVID-19 Infection Rates: Implications for Community Health Equity.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Earl W DuncanARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia. earl.duncan@qut.edu.au.
Nicole M WhiteCooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, Brisbane, Australia.
Kerrie MengersenARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen analysing spatial data, it is important to account for spatial autocorrelation. In Bayesian statistics, spatial autocorrelation is commonly modelled by the intrinsic conditional autoregressive prior distribution. At the heart of this model is a spatial weights matrix which controls the behaviour and degree of spatial smoothing. The purpose of this study is to review the main specifications of the spatial weights matrix found in the literature, and together with some new and less common specifications, compare the effect that they have on smoothing and model performance.

methodsThe popular BYM model is described, and a simple solution for addressing the identifiability issue among the spatial random effects is provided. Seventeen different definitions of the spatial weights matrix are defined, which are classified into four classes: adjacency-based weights, and weights based on geographic distance, distance between covariate values, and a hybrid of geographic and covariate distances. These last two definitions embody the main novelty of this research. Three synthetic data sets are generated, each representing a different underlying spatial structure. These data sets together with a real spatial data set from the literature are analysed using the models. The models are evaluated using the deviance information criterion and Moran's I statistic.

resultsThe deviance information criterion indicated that the model which uses binary, first-order adjacency weights to perform spatial smoothing is generally an optimal choice for achieving a good model fit. Distance-based weights also generally perform quite well and offer similar parameter interpretations. The less commonly explored options for performing spatial smoothing generally provided a worse model fit than models with more traditional approaches to smoothing, but usually outperformed the benchmark model which did not conduct spatial smoothing.

conclusionsThe specification of the spatial weights matrix can have a colossal impact on model fit and parameter estimation. The results provide some evidence that a smaller number of neighbours used in defining the spatial weights matrix yields a better model fit, and may provide a more accurate representation of the underlying spatial random field. The commonly used binary, first-order adjacency weights still appear to be a good choice for implementing spatial smoothing.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalSpatial AnalysisBayes TheoremHumansMouth NeoplasmsPoisson DistributionScotlandBayesian inferenceConditional autoregressive modelMarkov random fieldSpatial autocorrelationSpatial smoothingSpatial weights matrix

Identifiers

PMID29246157
PMCPMC5732501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.