Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance comparison of alternative kriging estimators: mean errors and mean absolute errors of prediction.

From: Geostatistical analysis of disease data: accounting for spatial support and population density in the isopleth mapping of cancer mortality risk using area-to-point Poisson kriging

Estimators

Lung cancer

Cervix cancer

MEAN ERROR

Average

% best result

Average

% best result

Point kriging of raw rates

-0.013

41

0.060

11

Point kriging of global EBS

0.008

11

0.040

15

Point kriging of local EBS

0.042

8

0.044

23

ATP Poisson kriging

-0.036

40

-0.001

51

ATP Poisson kriging (true γR(h))

-0.032

 

-0.001

 

MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR

Point kriging of raw rates

2.647

8

0.406

0

Point kriging of global EBS

2.694

3

0.406

1

Point kriging of local EBS

2.776

0

0.418

0

ATP Poisson kriging

2.471

89

0.317

99

ATP Poisson kriging (true γR(h))

2.452

 

0.313

 
  1. Results obtained on average over 100 realizations generated for Regions 1 and 2. Poisson kriging was conducted with the semivariogram model derived through deconvolution or inferred directly from the simulated grid risk values (true point-support model γR(h)). Bold numbers refer to best performances outside the ideal case where the true semivariogram of risk is known. The second column gives the percentage of realizations where the particular method (except ATP kriging with true γR(h)) yields the smallest prediction error.
Back to article page

International Journal of Health Geographics

ISSN: 1476-072X