1
Measuring spatial clustering in disease patterns.
Peter Congdon, Queen Mary University of [email protected]
http://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/staff/congdonp.htmlhttp://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/pcongdon/
2
Background: spatial correlation Tobler’s First Law of Geography: “All places are related
but nearby places are more related than distant places” Spatial correlation: similar values in nearer spatial units
than more distant units Common feature of geographically configured datasets
(spatial econometrics, area health, political science, etc).
Can have positive or negative correlation, but positive correlation most common
Spatial correlation indices measure correlation but also account for distance between (or contiguity of )spatial units
Reference (null) pattern: spatial randomness. Values observed at one location do not depend on values observed at neighboring locations
3
Background: spatial heterogeneity Michael Goodchild in “Challenges in
geographical information science”, Proc RSA 2011”
Mentions a second principle of spatial data: spatial heterogeneity.
In fact, an example of such heterogeneity is local variation in the degree of spatial dependence, leading to local indices of spatial association (LISA measures)
4
Background: observation types
My focus is on spatial lattice data: N areal subdivisions (e.g. administrative areas) which taken together constitute the entire study region.
Unlike point data (e.g. mineral readings in geostatistics), where major focus is on interpolating a response between observed locations.
5
Global Indices of Spatial Association Moran Index (for N areas, and continuous
centred data Zi)
6
Spatial Weights
Possible options for spatial weights W=[wij]
Adjacency/contiguity: if area j is adjacent to area i, then wij=1; otherwise wij=0.
wij a distance-based weight such as the inverse distance between locations i and j: wij=1/dij
7
Global Indices of Spatial Association: Binary data
8
Global Indices of Spatial Association: Binary data
9
Background: Area health data and spatial correlation
Health data with full population coverage (as opposed to survey data) often only available for geographic aggregates.
These may be small neighbourhoods, such as English lower super output areas (LSOAs). Average 1500-2000 population.
Small area units (with relatively homogenous social structure, physical environment and other exposures) preferable for epidemiological inferences in terms reducing ecologic bias
10
Background: Area health data and spatial correlation
Examples of area health data (e.g. for electoral wards, LSOAs): mortality data by cause, cancer incidence data, health prevalence data
Spatial correlation in area health outcomes reflects clustering in risk factors (observed and unobserved), such as deprivation/affluence, health behaviours, environmental factors, neighbourhood social capital, etc
11
Bayesian Relative Risk Models for Area Spatial Data
Bayesian models for area disease risks now widely applied (to detect smooth underlying risk surface over region, etc).
Assume observed disease counts yi Poisson distributed,
yi ~Po(eiri), (ei = expected counts) Relative risks ri have average 1 when
sum(expected)=sum(observed). Expected counts (demographic sense) based on applying region-wide disease rates to each small area population
12
Bayesian Relative Risk Models for Area Spatial Data
One option for modelling area relative risks, convolution scheme (Besag et al, 1991) log(ri)=+si+ui, Spatial error: si~Conditional Autogressive (CAR)
prior Heterogeneity/overdispersion error: ui ~
Unstructured normal White Noise
13
Neighbourhood Clustering in Elevated Risk
Consider binary risk measures: bi=1 if relative risk ri>1, bi=0 otherwise. These binary indicators are latent (unknown) as ri are
latent. Can use other thresholds (e.g. ri>1.5) Interest often in posterior exceedance probabilities
of elevated disease risk Ei=Pr(ri>1|y)=Prob(bi=1|y) in each area separately. Possible rules: area i a hotspot if Ei > 0.9 or if Ei>0.8.
Suitable threshold that Ei must exceed may depend on data frequency (higher thresholds can be set for more frequent data)
14
15
Neighbourhood Clustering in Elevated Risk “Hotspot” detection does not measure broader
local clustering in relative risks. Can have high risk and low risk clusters.
Can define high risk cluster centre: area i embedded in high risk cluster (i.e. high risk cluster centre) if both area i and all surrounding areas j have elevated risk, (Ei and Ej both high).
By contrast, high risk outlier: high risk area i (Ei high), but all adjacent areas j are low risk (Ej low)
Also, cluster edge area: high risk area i (Ei high), but adjacent areas j are mix of high and low risk
16
Neighbourhood Clustering in Elevated Risk
Low risk cluster centre:area i embedded in low risk cluster: both area i and surrounding areas j have low risk (Ei and Ej both low)
By contrast:low risk outlier, low risk area i (Ei low) but all adjacent areas are high risk
17
Spatial Scan Clusters Most well known approach to spatial clustering
of lattice data based on spatial scan method: produces lists of areas in a cluster at given significance, e.g. under Poisson model for data
Spatial scan: circle (or ellipse) of varying size systematically scans the study region (moving window).
Each geographic unit (e.g. census tract, LSOA) is a potential cluster centre.
Clusters are reported for those circles (or other area shapes) where total observed values within circle are greater than expected values.
18
Stochastic Approach to Measuring Clustering in Elevated Risk
Method to be described provides measure of cluster status for each area in situation where relative health risks ri (and binary health status bi) are unknowns
Can be considered a method of cluster detection, included in MCMC updating
Includes high risk and low risk clustering in single perspective, and also encompasses outliers (isolated high or low risk hotspot)
19
Synthetic Data Known adjacency structure: 113 middle level
super output areas (MSOAs) in Outer NE London
15 out of 113 areas have high RR (ri circa 1.75). Remainder have below average RR (ri circa 0.9).
High risk areas are located in three high risk clusters
Known yi and ei, and hence known crude relative risks (yi/ei), but whether (latent) RRs significantly elevated or not depends on amount of information in data (data frequency)
20
Synthetic Data Assess Ei and bi (using Besag et al
convolution model) according to different expected cases: ei=20.39, or ei=58.77.
For ei=20.39, yi are either 18 or 36 (to ensure sum of observed and expected are the same)
For ei=58.77, yi are either 52 or 103
21
Synthetic Data. Average e=20.39, Known RRs
22
Local Join-Counts to Detect Clustering in Relative Disease Risk
As mentioned above, global join counts (BB-WW-BW) measure global spatial clustering in binary risk indicators bi (note BW statistic combines two types of discrepancy)
To detect local clustering in risk (or outlier status), use local versions of global BB statistics.
23
Local Join-Counts to describe local clustering
Local version of BB statistic: summation only over neighbours of area i (not double summation)
J11i=bi∑jwijbj
wij either distance based or contiguity based (wij=1 if areas i and j adjacent, wij=0 otherwise)
J11i measures high risk “cluster embeddedness” or high risk cluster centre status. J11i will be high for areas surrounded by other high risk areas
24
Local Join-Counts to describe local clustering
Local version of BW statistic : J10i=bi∑jwij(1-bj)Measures high risk outlier status: when
area i has elevated risk, but all neighbours have low risk
Also tends to increase for high risk cluster edges: area i has elevated risk, but many neighbours have low risk
25
Local Join-Counts for low risk clustering
Local version of WW statistic : J00i=(1-bi)∑jwij(1-bj) high when area i and its neighbours both have low riskFinally, local WB statistic. Measures
situation of low risk area but discrepant from neighbours
J01i=(1-bi)∑jwijbj
26
Local Join-Counts under Binary Spatial Weights
Consider binary weights wij Denote areas adjacent to area i as its neighbourhood”
Ni Li =number areas adjacent to area i (number of areas in
neighbourhood Ni) Common high risk joins formula (local BB count) is now J11i=bi∑jNibj
Local BW count: J10i=bi∑jNi (1-bj) Also: J01i=(1-bi)∑jNibj
J00i=(1-bi) ∑jNi(1-bj)
27
Local Join-Counts under Binary Spatial WeightsSimple to show (and self-evident)
Li=J11i+J10i+J01i+J00iMultinomial sampling: Denominators
Li known, but {J11i,J10i,J01i,J00i} are unknowns in modelling situation with relative disease risks ri and risk indicators bi as unknowns.
28
Probabilities of Local ClusteringProportion π11i of joins representing joint high
risk, defined by E(J11i)=Liπ11i
Estimate during MCMC run (J11i and bi varying by iterations) asπ11i=J11i/Li=bi∑jNibj/Li
π11i estimates probability that area i is member of high risk cluster.
As 11i Ei, area i likely to be cluster centre Term ∑jNibj/Li 1 when all adjacent areas have
definitive high risk
29
Probabilities of Local Clustering
Proportion of local joins that are (1,0) pairs, defined by
E(J10i)=Liπ10iEstimates probability that area i
is high risk local outlierEstimate during MCMC run: π10i=J10i/Li=bi∑jNi (1-bj)/Li,
30
Decomposition of Exceedance Probability
Can show that Ei=Pr(ri>1|y)=π11i+π10iHave J11i+J10i=bi∑jNibj+bi∑jNi(1-bj)=biLi
so that E(J11i)+E(J10i)=E(bi)Li=EiLi
Also by definition E(J11i)+E(J10i)=Liπ11i+Liπ10i
31
Synthetic Data. Average e=20.39, Known RRs
32
Synthetic Data Example: Cluster Focus
Area 25, cluster centre. So also is area 23 in terms of having just high risk neighbours
Areas 27 and 28, cluster edges (have as many background risk neighbours as high risk neighbours)
Areas 22,23,25,27,28 all have true RR of 1.77, surrounding areas have RR of 0.88.
33
Cluster Focus (simulation with average ei=20.39, and bi=1 if ri>1)
Area IDri (poster-ior mean) Pr(bi=1)=Ei 11i 10i
22 1.45 1.00 0.89 0.1123 1.55 1.00 0.99 0.0025 1.48 1.00 1.00 0.0027 1.39 1.00 0.74 0.2628 1.35 0.99 0.67 0.3324 1.04 0.58 0.37 0.2129 0.98 0.40 0.23 0.1731 0.99 0.46 0.26 0.2133 1.00 0.47 0.26 0.2139 0.97 0.39 0.22 0.1740 0.97 0.37 0.18 0.19
Cluster
Background Risk
34
Cluster Focus (simulation with average ei=58.77, and bi=1 if ri>1)
Area IDri (poster-ior mean) Pr(bi=1)=Ei 11i 10i
22 1.64 1.00 0.85 0.1523 1.70 1.00 1.00 0.0025 1.67 1.00 1.00 0.0027 1.58 1.00 0.65 0.3528 1.56 1.00 0.58 0.4224 0.98 0.39 0.21 0.1829 0.93 0.24 0.10 0.1431 0.94 0.30 0.13 0.1733 0.95 0.29 0.13 0.1639 0.93 0.23 0.11 0.1340 0.93 0.22 0.08 0.15
Cluster
Background Risk
35
Cluster Centres and Edges
Cluster centre status verified: 11i Ei for areas 25 and 23.
Cluster edge status becomes clearer with more frequent data (for areas 27 and 28)
36
Cluster Focus (simulation with average ei=20.39)Map of High Risk Cluster Probabilities 11i
37
Cluster Focus (simulation with average ei=58.77)Map of High Risk Cluster Probabilities 11i
38
Another simulation where clustering pattern known: cluster centre status under uneven risk scenario
Performance of 11i for measuring cluster centre status for contrasting situations
(1) EVEN RISK. High risk characterises all neighbours surrounding area i (so area i is cluster centre), and risk evenly distributed among neighbours
(2) UNEVEN RISK. High risk is not common to all neighbours, but unevenly concentrated among a few neighbours, so area i is no longer a cluster centre, and possibly a cluster edge.
39
Even risk vs uneven risk scenarios
40
41
Winbugs code model {for (i in 1:N) {y[i] ~ dpois(mu[i]); mu[i] <- e[i]*r[i] log(r[i]) <- alph+s[i]+u[i]; u[i] ~ dnorm(0,tau.u); b[i] <- step(r[i]-1); # joins and join counts for (j in C[i]+1:C[i+1]) { j11[i,j] <- b[i]*b.map[j]; j10[i,j] <- b[i]*(1-b.map[j]) j01[i,j] <- (1-b[i])*b.map[j]; j00[i,j] <- (1-b[i])*(1-b.map[j])} J11[i] <- sum(j11[i,C[i]+1 : C[i+1]]); J10[i] <- sum(j10[i,C[i]+1 : C[i+1]]) J01[i] <- sum(j01[i,C[i]+1 : C[i+1]]); J00[i] <- sum(j00[i,C[i]+1 : C[i+1]]) pi.L[1,i] <- J11[i]/L[i]; pi.L[2,i] <- J10[i]/L[i]; pi.L[3,i] <- J01[i]/L[i]; pi.L[4,i] <- J00[i]/L[i]} # neighbourhood vector of risks and indicators for (i in 1:NN) { wt[i] <- 1; r.map[i] <- r[map[i]]; b.map[i] <- b[map[i]]} # priors alph ~ dflat(); tau.s ~ dgamma(1,0.001); rho ~ dexp(1); tau.u <-
rho*tau.s s[1:N] ~ car.normal(map[], wt[], L[], tau.s)}
42
Real Example: Suicide in North West England Suicide counts {yi,ei} for 922 small areas
(middle level super output areas, MSOAs) in NW England over 5 years (2006-10).
Model: yi ~Po(eiri), relative risks ri averaging 1 log(ri)=+si+ui, si~CAR, ui ~ WN
o Overdispersion: ui needed as well as spatial term
Monitor exceedance and high risk clustering with bi=1 if ri>1, bi=0 otherwise.
Spatial interactions wij binary, based on adjacency
43
Smoothed Suicide Risk
Note small expected values ei, average
3.5: impedes strong inferences about
elevated risk, and so also about clustering
44
Real Example: Suicide in North West England Flexscan (developed by Toshiro Tango)
detects five significant clusters (p value under 0.05): most likely cluster (albeit irregular shape) consists of 9 areas in Blackpool.
1.Census areas included .: 587, 588, 590, 591, 593, 594, 595, 597, 599 Maximum distance.......: 5823.08 (areas: 587 to 599) Number of cases .......: 68 (Expected number of cases: 31.0964) Overall relative risk .: 2.18675 Statistic value .......: 16.5159 Monte Carlo rank ......: 6/1000 P-value ...............: 0.006
45
High Suicide Risk Cluster, Blackpool
and Surrounds
46
Real Example: Suicide in North West England, Areas within the Flexscan cluster
Exceedance Prob
High risk cluster prob
High risk outlier prob
ID_all_922ARCMAP
ID y_i e_i E_i pi11_i pi10_i587 2 6 3.6 0.84 0.62 0.22588 3 6 3.7 0.80 0.52 0.28590 5 11 3.4 0.99 0.75 0.24591 6 6 2.5 0.89 0.54 0.34593 8 7 3.8 0.87 0.54 0.33594 9 10 3.8 0.98 0.87 0.11595 10 7 3.5 0.91 0.77 0.14597 12 9 3.1 0.97 0.75 0.21599 14 6 3.6 0.86 0.65 0.21
68 31.1
47Exceedance Probs for Blackpool Suicide Cluster (ARCMAP area IDs)
Possible QuestionsWhat is most plausible cluster centre (if any)?Which areas are more likely to be cluster edges?Of two areas inside the doughnut, area 7 has higher exceedance prob (E7=0.72, E4=0.48).Area 9 has E9=0.98, and five of 6 neighbours have Ej>0.8. Other neighbour has Ej=0.72. Area 9 has highest π11i namely 0.87. Area 6 has four neighbours, only two with Ej>0.8, two with Ej below 0.5 (E4=0.48, E41=0.26). Has π11i=0.54, π10i=0.34 cluster edge
48
Local Join-Counts for Bivariate ClusteringLocal BB statistic for two outcomes A, B with event counts yAi, yBi. Binary indicators
bABi=1 if both rAi>1 and rBi>1 bABi=0 otherwiseBivariate high risk clustering assessed using local bivariate join count
J11ABi=bABi∑jwijbABj
49
Local Join-Counts for Bivariate Clustering
J11ABi high in bivariate high risk cluster – when area i, and neighbours j of area i, both have high risk on both outcomes.
Bivariate high risk clustering probability π11ABi, proportion of joins that are joint high risk, defined by
E(J11ABi)=Liπ11ABiEstimate during MCMC run via
π11ABi=J11ABi/Li
50
Two outcomes: Likelihood and Prior
NW England, MSOAs, yA suicide deaths, yB self-harm hospitalisations
Self harm much more frequent than suicide, average ei is 93.
Likelihood yAi ~ Po(eAirAi), yBi ~ Po(eBirBi) Assume correlated spatial effects log(rAi)=A+sAi+uAi; log(rBi)=B+sBi+uBi, uAi ~ WN, uBi ~ WN SA:B,i~BVCAR,
51
Example: suicide mortality and self-harm hospitalisations in North West England
Smoothed suicide risk rAi, Wigan and adjacent boroughs
52
Example: suicide mortality and self-harm hospitalisations in North West England
Smoothed self-harm risk, rBi, Wigan and adjacent boroughs
53
Bivariate clustering: suicide and self-harm, Wigan and surrounds
Probabilities π11ABi of joint outcome high risk cluster status
54
Another Bivariate Example: Pre-Primary Obesity (yA) and End-Primary Child Obesity (yB) in NE London.
Map is of RRs in Pre-Primary Obesity
MSOAsRelative Risks (Pre-primary obesity)
0.68 - 0.83
0.84 - 0.93
0.94 - 1.02
1.03 - 1.13
1.14 - 1.26
55
RRs for End-Primary Child Obesity (yB).Relative risks in this outcome show negative
skew
MSOAsRelative Risk (end-primary obesity)
0.65 - 0.88
0.89 - 0.97
0.98 - 1.05
1.06 - 1.10
1.11 - 1.19
56
Probabilities of Joint High Risk Clustering
MSOAsHigh Risk Clusters (pi11_AB)
0.00 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.75
Over 0.75
57
Probabilities of Joint Low Risk Clustering
MSOAsJoint Low Risk Probs, pi00_ AB
Under 0.2
0.2 - 0.8
Over 0.8
58
Final Remarks Cluster status approach can be embedded
within different models (including model averaging or covariate impacts). Clustering (as well as exceedance) inferences can be compared. So provides “model based clustering”
Provides alternative perspective to “list of areas” approach, and additional insights with regard to cluster centres vs edges, low risk clustering as well as high risk clustering in an integrated
perspective, high/low risk outliers
Can also apply bivariate method when outcome A is disease, outcome B is risk factor. Detects varying strength of association between disease and risk factor
Top Related