ArticleStatistics in medicine2020
The timing of geographic power.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced spatial analysis assessing the association between PFAS-contaminated water and cancer incidence: rationale, study design, and methods.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Assessing and attenuating the impact of selection bias on spatial cluster detection studies.Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In many studies on the spatial risk of disease, investigators use geographic locations at the time of disease diagnosis in spatial models to search for individual areas of elevated risk. However, these studies often fail to find a significant spatial signal. This may be due to the misspecification of the timing and location of pertinent exposures. Environmental exposures related to cancer risk vary over space and time, and many cancers have long latencies. When these factors are considered in conjunction with a mobile population, it is likely that the spatial signal related to relevant historic environmental exposures is obscured. To investigate this hypothesis, we conducted simulation studies to characterize the effect of residential mobility on the ability of generalized additive models to detect areas of significantly elevated historic environmental exposure. We generated data based on the residential histories of participants in the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results non-Hodgkin lymphoma study, and varied the duration and intensity of the environmental exposure. Results showed that the probability of detection, mean spatial sensitivity, and mean spatial specificity of models decreased steadily as the time since relevant exposure increased. This suggests that for diseases with long latencies, spatial areas of high risk due to high-intensity exposure of relatively short duration will be difficult to detect over time when using residential locations at the time of diagnosis in mobile study populations.
Indexed as
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.