Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance comparison of alternative estimators: mean error of prediction. Results obtained on average over 100 realizations generated under two different population size scenarios and 3 types of risk map (1 = observed, 2 = smooth, 3 = random). Poisson kriging was conducted with the semivariogram estimated from the underlying risk values (true γR(h)) or the simulated mortality rates. Bold numbers refer to best performances outside the ideal case where the true semivariogram of risk is known.

From: Geostatistical analysis of disease data: estimation of cancer mortality risk from empirical frequencies using Poisson kriging

Estimators

WF population

BF population

BREAST CANCER

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Observed rates

-0.006

0.004

-0.020

-0.221

0.141

-0.198

Population-weighted average

0.996

0.491

0.303

1.654

0.720

0.562

Global Empirical Bayes

1.245

1.127

0.162

3.094

1.921

0.581

Local Empirical Bayes

0.586

0.395

0.130

1.623

0.737

0.572

Poisson kriging (true γR(h))

0.237

0.175

0.005

1.264

0.600

0.372

Poisson kriging

0.228

0.193

0.016

1.441

0.622

0.412

CERVIX CANCER

      

Observed rates

0.000

0.001

-0.003

0.248

0.059

-0.010

Population-weighted average

-0.362

-0.196

-0.139

-0.406

-0.261

-0.270

Global Empirical Bayes

-0.386

-0.398

-0.092

-0.717

-0.697

-0.337

Local Empirical Bayes

-0.184

-0.142

-0.066

-0.331

-0.215

-0.203

Poisson kriging (true γR(h))

-0.051

-0.024

-0.034

-0.299

-0.198

-0.197

Poisson kriging

-0.049

-0.019

-0.028

-0.221

-0.118

-0.167