Skip to main content

Table 6 Detection power with and without randomization testing, using empirical/asymptotic p-values

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

method

ED dataset

TH dataset

CC dataset

AF dataset

KULL MA

3.17/3.23

4.24/4.23

2.60/2.55

3.18/3.19

KULL MA-DOW

3.26/3.04

4.23/4.09

2.26/2.26

2.83/2.80

KULL MA-WK

3.21/3.23

4.02/4.23

2.58/2.55

3.08/3.19

KULL MA-WK-DOW

3.21/3.04

4.03/4.09

2.41/2.26

2.82/2.80

EBP MA

2.48/2.50

3.28/3.29

3.42/ 4.16

3.90/3.99

EBP MA-DOW

2.49/2.53

3.57/3.44

3.14/ 4.10

4.20/4.36

EBP MA-WK

2.67/2.50

3.64/3.40

3.08/2.70

4.62/3.92

EBP MA-WK-DOW

2.92/2.59

4.02/3.75

2.90/2.47

4.53/4.00

EBG MA

2.84/2.91

4.00/4.19

4.52/4.43

4.35/4.63

EBG MA-DOW

3.05/3.01

4.92/4.66

4.67/4.50

4.83/4.79

EBG MA-WK

2.91/2.87

4.20/4.24

3.25/3.16

4.51/4.43

EBG MA-WK-DOW

2.95/3.04

4.99/4.73

3.08/2.96

4.46/4.56

  1. 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, using empirical/asymptotic p-values [37]) 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.