Dataset Information

SMOOTHED ANOVA WITH SPATIAL EFFECTS AS A COMPETITOR TO MCAR IN MULTIVARIATE SPATIAL SMOOTHING.

ABSTRACT: Rapid developments in geographical information systems (GIS) continue to generate interest in analyzing complex spatial datasets. One area of activity is in creating smoothed disease maps to describe the geographic variation of disease and generate hypotheses for apparent differences in risk. With multiple diseases, a multivariate conditionally autoregressive (MCAR) model is often used to smooth across space while accounting for associations between the diseases. The MCAR, however, imposes complex covariance structures that are difficult to interpret and estimate. This article develops a much simpler alternative approach building upon the techniques of smoothed ANOVA (SANOVA). Instead of simply shrinking effects without any structure, here we use SANOVA to smooth spatial random effects by taking advantage of the spatial structure. We extend SANOVA to cases in which one factor is a spatial lattice, which is smoothed using a CAR model, and a second factor is, for example, type of cancer. Datasets routinely lack enough information to identify the additional structure of MCAR. SANOVA offers a simpler and more intelligible structure than the MCAR while performing as well. We demonstrate our approach with simulation studies designed to compare SANOVA with different design matrices versus MCAR with different priors. Subsequently a cancer-surveillance dataset, describing incidence of 3-cancers in Minnesota's 87 counties, is analyzed using both approaches, showing the competitiveness of the SANOVA approach.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2894541 | biostudies-literature | 2009

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

SMOOTHED ANOVA WITH SPATIAL EFFECTS AS A COMPETITOR TO MCAR IN MULTIVARIATE SPATIAL SMOOTHING.

Zhang Yufen Y Hodges James S JS Banerjee Sudipto S

The annals of applied statistics 20090101 4

Rapid developments in geographical information systems (GIS) continue to generate interest in analyzing complex spatial datasets. One area of activity is in creating smoothed disease maps to describe the geographic variation of disease and generate hypotheses for apparent differences in risk. With multiple diseases, a multivariate conditionally autoregressive (MCAR) model is often used to smooth across space while accounting for associations between the diseases. The MCAR, however, imposes compl ...[more]

PMID: 20596299

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many methods of spatial smoothing have been developed, for both point data as well as areal data. In Bayesian spatial models, this is achieved by purposefully designed prior(s) or smoothing functions which smooth estimates towards a local or global mean. Smoothing is important for several reasons, not least of all because it increases predictive robustness and reduces uncertainty of the estimates. Despite the benefits of smoothing, this attribute is all but ignored when it comes to model selection. Traditional goodness-of-fit measures focus on model fit and model parsimony, but neglect "goodness-of-smoothing", and are therefore not necessarily good indicators of model performance. Comparing spatial models while taking into account the degree of spatial smoothing is not straightforward because smoothing and model fit can be viewed as opposing goals. Over- and under-smoothing of spatial data are genuine concerns, but have received very little attention in the literature. METHODS:This paper demonstrates the problem with spatial model selection based solely on goodness-of-fit by proposing several methods for quantifying the degree of smoothing. Several commonly used spatial models are fit to real data, and subsequently compared using the goodness-of-fit and goodness-of-smoothing statistics. RESULTS:The proposed goodness-of-smoothing statistics show substantial agreement in the task of model selection, and tend to avoid models that over- or under-smooth. Conversely, the traditional goodness-of-fit criteria often don't agree, and can lead to poor model choice. In particular, the well-known deviance information criterion tended to select under-smoothed models. CONCLUSIONS:Some of the goodness-of-smoothing methods may be improved with modifications and better guidelines for their interpretation. However, these proposed goodness-of-smoothing methods offer researchers a solution to spatial model selection which is easy to implement. Moreover, they highlight the danger in relying on goodness-of-fit measures when comparing spatial models.

Project description:Neuroimaging methods with enhanced spatial resolution such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) suggest that the subcortical striatum plays a critical role in human reward processing. Analysis of FMRI data requires several preprocessing steps, some of which entail tradeoffs. For instance, while spatial smoothing can enhance statistical power, it may also bias localization towards regions that contain more gray than white matter. In a meta-analysis and reanalysis of an existing dataset, we sought to determine whether spatial smoothing could systematically bias the spatial localization of foci related to reward anticipation in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). An activation likelihood estimate (ALE) meta-analysis revealed that peak ventral striatal ALE foci for studies that used smaller spatial smoothing kernels (i.e. <6mm FWHM) were more anterior than those identified for studies that used larger kernels (i.e. >7mm FWHM). Additionally, subtraction analysis of findings for studies that used smaller versus larger smoothing kernels revealed a significant cluster of differential activity in the left relatively anterior NAcc (Talairach coordinates: -10, 9, -1). A second meta-analysis revealed that larger smoothing kernels were correlated with more posterior localizations of NAcc activation foci (p<0.015), but revealed no significant associations with other potentially relevant parameters (including voxel volume, magnet strength, and publication date). Finally, repeated analysis of a representative dataset processed at different smoothing kernels (i.e., 0-12mm) also indicated that smoothing systematically yielded more posterior activation foci in the NAcc (p<0.005). Taken together, these findings indicate that spatial smoothing can systematically bias the spatial localization of striatal activity. These findings have implications both for historical interpretation of past findings related to reward processing and for the analysis of future studies.

Dataset Information

SMOOTHED ANOVA WITH SPATIAL EFFECTS AS A COMPETITOR TO MCAR IN MULTIVARIATE SPATIAL SMOOTHING.

Publications

SMOOTHED ANOVA WITH SPATIAL EFFECTS AS A COMPETITOR TO MCAR IN MULTIVARIATE SPATIAL SMOOTHING.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets