Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of detection power on CC and AF datasets, for varying outbreak sizes

From: An empirical comparison of spatial scan statistics for outbreak detection

method

CC large

CC medium

CC small

AF large

AF medium

AF small

KULL MA

6.43 (14.8%)

2.53 (100%)

2.33 (99.5%)

6.64 (10.6%)

3.20 (100%)

3.00 (99.3%)

KULL MA-DOW

5.69 (60.8%)

2.25 (100%)

2.06 (99.5%)

6.44 (23.9%)

2.80 (100%)

2.61 (99.4%)

KULL MA-WK

6.43 (14.8%)

2.53 (100%)

2.33 (99.5%)

6.64 (10.6%)

3.20 (100%)

3.00 (99.3%)

KULL MA-WK-DOW

5.69 (60.8%)

2.25 (100%)

2.06 (99.5%)

6.44 (23.9%)

2.80 (100%)

2.61 (99.4%)

EBP MA

4.61 (87.5%)

4.07 (96.7%)

4.13 (94.0%)

4.22 (99.4%)

3.95 (99.9%)

3.87 (98.0%)

EBP MA-DOW

4.59 (88.6%)

4.06 (95.8%)

4.10 (94.4%)

4.70 (97.5%)

4.37 (99.0%)

4.32 (95.9%)

EBP MA-WK

3.30 (98.2%)

2.76 (100%)

2.83 (99.2%)

4.64 (82.5%)

4.07 (98.2%)

3.87 (96.7%)

EBP MA-WK-DOW

3.07 (98.7%)

2.58 (99.9%)

2.57 (99.3%)

4.65 (83.8%)

4.01 (98.5%)

3.89 (97.0%)

EBG MA

4.73 (80.7%)

4.30 (89.5%)

4.43 (76.5%)

4.80 (91.4%)

4.56 (94.5%)

4.47 (84.1%)

EBG MA-DOW

4.81 (80.5%)

4.36 (89.8%)

4.54 (75.0%)

4.96 (89.2%)

4.68 (93.2%)

4.70 (78.9%)

EBG MA-WK

3.73 (91.5%)

3.07 (99.4%)

3.12 (95.4%)

4.93 (75.7%)

4.47 (93.3%)

4.27 (85.9%)

EBG MA-WK-DOW

3.68 (92.4%)

3.03 (99.5%)

3.06 (96.3%)

5.04 (74.0%)

4.54 (92.0%)

4.36 (84.2%)

  1. Average days to detection, and percentage of outbreaks detected, at 1 false positive per month. Methods in bold are not significantly different (in terms of days to detect, at α = .05) from the best-performing method.