Search

In disease mapping where predictor effects are to be modeled, it is often the case that sets of predictors are fixed, and the aim is to choose between fixed model sets. Model selection methods, both Bayesian model selection and Bayesian model averaging, are approaches within the Bayesian paradigm for achieving this aim. In the spatial context, model selection could have a spatial component in the sense that some models may be more appropriate for certain areas of a study region than others. In this work, we examine the use of spatially referenced Bayesian model averaging and Bayesian model selection via a large-scale simulation study accompanied by a small-scale case study. Our results suggest that BMS performs well when a strong regression signature is found.

In disease mapping, a scale effect due to an aggregation of data from a finer resolution level to a coarser level is a common phenomenon. This article addresses this issue using a hierarchical Bayesian modeling framework. We propose four different multiscale models. The first two models use a shared random effect that the finer level inherits from the coarser level. The third model assumes two independent convolution models at the finer and coarser levels. The fourth model applies a convolution model at the finer level, but the relative risk at the coarser level is obtained by aggregating the estimates at the finer level. We compare the models using the deviance information criterion (DIC) and Watanabe-Akaike information criterion (WAIC) that are applied to real and simulated data. The results indicate that the models with shared random effects outperform the other models on a range of criteria.

Spatial data are often aggregated from a finer (smaller) to a coarser (larger) geographical level. The process of data aggregation induces a scaling effect which smoothes the variation in the data. To address the scaling problem, multiscale models that link the convolution models at different scale levels via the shared random effect have been proposed. One of the main goals in aggregated health data is to investigate the relationship between predictors and an outcome at different geographical levels. In this paper, we extend multiscale models to examine whether a predictor effect at a finer level hold true at a coarser level. To adjust for predictor uncertainty due to aggregation, we applied measurement error models in the framework of multiscale approach. To assess the benefit of using multiscale measurement error models, we compare the performance of multiscale models with and without measurement error in both real and simulated data. We found that ignoring the measurement error in multiscale models underestimates the regression coefficient, while it overestimates the variance of the spatially structured random effect. On the other hand, accounting for the measurement error in multiscale models provides a better model fit and unbiased parameter estimates., (© The Author(s) 2016.)