Skip to main content

Table 6 Performance comparison of alternative estimators: goodness of the model of uncertainty. 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 use of observed rates and 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 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.956 0.964 0.965
Population-weighted average 0.967 0.943 0.968 0.887 0.761 0.910
Global Empirical Bayes 0.847 0.843 0.974 0.908 0.787 0.804
Local Empirical Bayes 0.964 0.952 0.971 0.899 0.782 0.921
Poisson kriging (true γR(h)) 0.971 0.972 0.947 0.716 0.842 0.887
Poisson kriging 0.965 0.913 0.940 0.761 0.927 0.803
CERVIX CANCER       
Observed rates 0.937 0.939 0.970 0.935 0.935 0.922
Population-weighted average 0.933 0.901 0.933 0.852 0.743 0.888
Global Empirical Bayes 0.875 0.870 0.973 0.833 0.785 0.787
Local Empirical Bayes 0.960 0.920 0.962 0.875 0.771 0.901
Poisson kriging (true γR(h)) 0.963 0.947 0.973 0.931 0.935 0.966
Poisson kriging 0.968 0.924 0.934 0.940 0.893 0.935