ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Issues in the Current Practices of Spatial Cluster Detection and Exploring Alternative Methods.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal dynamic and regional differences of public attention to vaccination: An empirical study in China.PloS one · 2024Article
- A Spatial Autocorrelation Method forTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Prediction of the Old-Age Dependency Ratio in Chinese Cities Using DMSP/OLS Nighttime Light Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Local Moran and local G-statistic are commonly used to identify high-value (hot spot) and low-value (cold spot) spatial clusters for various purposes. However, these popular tools are based on the concept of spatial autocorrelation or association (SA), but do not explicitly consider if values are high or low enough to deserve attention. Resultant clusters may not include areas with extreme values that practitioners often want to identify when using these tools. Additionally, these tools are based on statistics that assume observed values or estimates are highly accurate with error levels that can be ignored or are spatially uniform. In this article, problems associated with these popular SA-based cluster detection tools were illustrated. Alternative hot spot-cold spot detection methods considering estimate error were explored. The class separability classification method was demonstrated to produce useful results. A heuristic hot spot-cold spot identification method was also proposed. Based on user-determined threshold values, areas with estimates exceeding the thresholds were treated as seeds. These seeds and neighboring areas with estimates that were not statistically different from those in the seeds at a given confidence level constituted the hot spots and cold spots. Results from the heuristic method were intuitively meaningful and practically valuable.
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.