An empirical comparison of spatial scan statistics for outbreak detection

Table 5 Detection power with and without randomization testing

method	ED dataset	TH dataset	CC dataset	AF dataset
KULL MA	3.23/3.23	4.41/4.23	5.40/2.55	4.52/3.19
KULL MA-DOW	3.45/3.04	4.95/4.09	3.73/2.26	3.65/2.80
KULL MA-WK	3.31/3.23	5.26/4.23	6.04/2.55	5.30/3.19
KULL MA-WK-DOW	3.19/3.04	5.20/4.09	3.57/2.26	3.99/2.80
EBP MA	2.54/2.50	3.95/3.29	6.36/4.16	5.89/3.99
EBP MA-DOW	2.65/2.53	3.51/3.44	4.59/4.10	5.62/4.36
EBP MA-WK	2.74/2.50	5.04/3.40	5.84/2.70	5.11/3.92
EBP MA-WK-DOW	2.92/2.59	4.31/3.75	5.05/2.47	5.30/4.00
EBG MA	4.50/2.91	5.90/4.19	4.94/4.43	4.92/4.63
EBG MA-DOW	5.48/3.01	5.15/4.66	5.61/4.50	5.00/4.79
EBG MA-WK	4.87/2.87	5.92/4.24	3.82/3.16	4.58/4.43
EBG MA-WK-DOW	5.53/3.04	5.92/4.73	4.90/2.96	4.53/4.56

Average days to detection at 1 false positive per month for "medium-sized" outbreaks injected into each dataset, using empirically determined thresholds on p-value (computed by randomization testing) and score (without randomization testing) respectively. If there is a significant difference between the detection times with and without randomization, the better-performing method is marked in bold.

ISSN: 1476-072X