ArticleJournal of applied statistics2024
Prediction and model evaluation for space-time data.
Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2024. 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.
- Article
- A review of geospatial exposure models and approaches for health data integration.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Review
- Effect modification of the association between fine particulate air pollution during a wildfire event and respiratory health by area-level measures of socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, and smoking prevalence.Environmental research, health : ERH · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluation metrics for prediction error, model selection and model averaging on space-time data are understudied and poorly understood. The absence of independent replication makes prediction ambiguous as a concept and renders evaluation procedures developed for independent data inappropriate for most space-time prediction problems. Motivated by air pollution data collected during California wildfires in 2008, this manuscript attempts a formalization of the true prediction error associated with spatial interpolation. We investigate a variety of cross-validation (CV) procedures employing both simulations and case studies to provide insight into the nature of the estimand targeted by alternative data partition strategies. Consistent with recent best practice, we find that location-based cross-validation is appropriate for estimating spatial interpolation error as in our analysis of the California wildfire data. Interestingly, commonly held notions of bias-variance trade-off of CV fold size do not trivially apply to dependent data, and we recommend leave-one-location-out (LOLO) CV as the preferred prediction error metric for spatial interpolation.
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.