Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15246933

A method for testing low-value spatial clustering for rare diseases.

Abstract

This paper proposes a method that tests for the existence of low-value spatial clustering while accounting for the influence of high-value clustering. Although the method was developed in reference to the Tango test, it can be extended to other testing methods. The simulation results showed that the proposed method is able to effectively detect low-value clustering with substantially lower rates of type I errors than those of the Tango test, while maintaining comparable statistical power. Applying the method in a case study of leukemia in Minnesota demonstrated an overall tendency toward low-value clustering of leukemia mortality for males but provided inconclusive results for females.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ge Lin, Tonglin Zhang. 2004. A method for testing low-value spatial clustering for rare diseases.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2004.05.006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Psychiatric disorder criteria and their application to research in different racial groups.

BACKGROUND: The advent of standardized classification and assessment of psychiatric disorders, and considerable joint efforts among many countries has led to the reporting of international rates of psychiatric disorders, and inevitably, their comparison between different racial groups. RESULTS: In neurologic diseases with defined genetic etiologies, the same genetic cause has different phenotypes in different racial groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that genetic differences between races mean that diagnostic criteria refined in one racial group, may not be directly and simply applicable to other racial groups and thus more effort needs to be expended on defining diseases in other groups. Cross-racial confounds (in addition to cultural confounds) make the interpretation of rates in different groups even more hazardous than seems to have been appreciated.

Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic↗