Empirical bayes estimators for spatially correlated incidence rates

Owen J. Devine, Thomas Louis, M. Elizabeth Halloran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Assessments of the potential health impacts of contaminants and other environmental risk factors are often based on comparisons of disease rates among collections of spatially aligned areas. These comparisons are valid only if the observed rates adequately reflect the true underlying area‐specific risk. In areas with small populations, observed incidence values can be highly unstable and true risk differences among areas can be masked by spurious fluctuations in the observed rates. We examine the use of Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for stabilizing incidence rates observed in geographically aligned areas. While these methods improve stability, both the Bayes and empirical Bayes approaches produce a histogram of the estimates that is too narrow when compared to the true distribution of risk. Constrained empirical Bayes estimators have been developed that provide improved estimation of the variance of the true rates. We use simulations to compare the performance of Bayes, empirical Bayes, and constrained empirical Bayes approaches for estimating incidence rates in a variety of multivariate Gaussian scenarios with differing levels of spatial dependence. The mean squared error of estimation associated with the simulated observed rates was, on average, five times greater than that of the Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates. The sample variance of the standard Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates was consistently smaller than the variance of the simulated rates. The constrained estimators produced collections of rate estimates that dramatically improved estimation of the true dispersion of risk. In addition, the mean square error of the constrained empirical Bayes estimates was only slightly greater than that of the unconstrained rate estimates. We illustrate the use of empirical and constrained empirical Bayes estimators in an analysis of lung cancer mortality rates in Ohio.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)381-398
Number of pages18
JournalEnvironmetrics
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Empirical Bayes Estimator
Empirical Bayes
Bayes
Incidence
Bayes Estimate
Risk Difference
Empirical Bayes Method
Estimate
Sample variance
Spatial Dependence
Mortality Rate
Lung Cancer
Environmental Factors
Risk Factors
Mean Squared Error
Mean square error
Histogram
rate
Health
Unstable

Keywords

  • Empirical Bayes
  • Geographic analysis
  • Incidence rates
  • Mapping
  • Smoothing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • Ecological Modeling

Cite this

Empirical bayes estimators for spatially correlated incidence rates. / Devine, Owen J.; Louis, Thomas; Halloran, M. Elizabeth.

In: Environmetrics, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1994, p. 381-398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Devine, Owen J. ; Louis, Thomas ; Halloran, M. Elizabeth. / Empirical bayes estimators for spatially correlated incidence rates. In: Environmetrics. 1994 ; Vol. 5, No. 4. pp. 381-398.
@article{ee5da0d0346b437ca170338096d567dc,
title = "Empirical bayes estimators for spatially correlated incidence rates",
abstract = "Assessments of the potential health impacts of contaminants and other environmental risk factors are often based on comparisons of disease rates among collections of spatially aligned areas. These comparisons are valid only if the observed rates adequately reflect the true underlying area‐specific risk. In areas with small populations, observed incidence values can be highly unstable and true risk differences among areas can be masked by spurious fluctuations in the observed rates. We examine the use of Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for stabilizing incidence rates observed in geographically aligned areas. While these methods improve stability, both the Bayes and empirical Bayes approaches produce a histogram of the estimates that is too narrow when compared to the true distribution of risk. Constrained empirical Bayes estimators have been developed that provide improved estimation of the variance of the true rates. We use simulations to compare the performance of Bayes, empirical Bayes, and constrained empirical Bayes approaches for estimating incidence rates in a variety of multivariate Gaussian scenarios with differing levels of spatial dependence. The mean squared error of estimation associated with the simulated observed rates was, on average, five times greater than that of the Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates. The sample variance of the standard Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates was consistently smaller than the variance of the simulated rates. The constrained estimators produced collections of rate estimates that dramatically improved estimation of the true dispersion of risk. In addition, the mean square error of the constrained empirical Bayes estimates was only slightly greater than that of the unconstrained rate estimates. We illustrate the use of empirical and constrained empirical Bayes estimators in an analysis of lung cancer mortality rates in Ohio.",
keywords = "Empirical Bayes, Geographic analysis, Incidence rates, Mapping, Smoothing",
author = "Devine, {Owen J.} and Thomas Louis and Halloran, {M. Elizabeth}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1002/env.3170050403",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "381--398",
journal = "Environmetrics",
issn = "1180-4009",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empirical bayes estimators for spatially correlated incidence rates

AU - Devine, Owen J.

AU - Louis, Thomas

AU - Halloran, M. Elizabeth

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Assessments of the potential health impacts of contaminants and other environmental risk factors are often based on comparisons of disease rates among collections of spatially aligned areas. These comparisons are valid only if the observed rates adequately reflect the true underlying area‐specific risk. In areas with small populations, observed incidence values can be highly unstable and true risk differences among areas can be masked by spurious fluctuations in the observed rates. We examine the use of Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for stabilizing incidence rates observed in geographically aligned areas. While these methods improve stability, both the Bayes and empirical Bayes approaches produce a histogram of the estimates that is too narrow when compared to the true distribution of risk. Constrained empirical Bayes estimators have been developed that provide improved estimation of the variance of the true rates. We use simulations to compare the performance of Bayes, empirical Bayes, and constrained empirical Bayes approaches for estimating incidence rates in a variety of multivariate Gaussian scenarios with differing levels of spatial dependence. The mean squared error of estimation associated with the simulated observed rates was, on average, five times greater than that of the Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates. The sample variance of the standard Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates was consistently smaller than the variance of the simulated rates. The constrained estimators produced collections of rate estimates that dramatically improved estimation of the true dispersion of risk. In addition, the mean square error of the constrained empirical Bayes estimates was only slightly greater than that of the unconstrained rate estimates. We illustrate the use of empirical and constrained empirical Bayes estimators in an analysis of lung cancer mortality rates in Ohio.

AB - Assessments of the potential health impacts of contaminants and other environmental risk factors are often based on comparisons of disease rates among collections of spatially aligned areas. These comparisons are valid only if the observed rates adequately reflect the true underlying area‐specific risk. In areas with small populations, observed incidence values can be highly unstable and true risk differences among areas can be masked by spurious fluctuations in the observed rates. We examine the use of Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for stabilizing incidence rates observed in geographically aligned areas. While these methods improve stability, both the Bayes and empirical Bayes approaches produce a histogram of the estimates that is too narrow when compared to the true distribution of risk. Constrained empirical Bayes estimators have been developed that provide improved estimation of the variance of the true rates. We use simulations to compare the performance of Bayes, empirical Bayes, and constrained empirical Bayes approaches for estimating incidence rates in a variety of multivariate Gaussian scenarios with differing levels of spatial dependence. The mean squared error of estimation associated with the simulated observed rates was, on average, five times greater than that of the Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates. The sample variance of the standard Bayes and empirical Bayes estimates was consistently smaller than the variance of the simulated rates. The constrained estimators produced collections of rate estimates that dramatically improved estimation of the true dispersion of risk. In addition, the mean square error of the constrained empirical Bayes estimates was only slightly greater than that of the unconstrained rate estimates. We illustrate the use of empirical and constrained empirical Bayes estimators in an analysis of lung cancer mortality rates in Ohio.

KW - Empirical Bayes

KW - Geographic analysis

KW - Incidence rates

KW - Mapping

KW - Smoothing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028159321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028159321&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/env.3170050403

DO - 10.1002/env.3170050403

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0028159321

VL - 5

SP - 381

EP - 398

JO - Environmetrics

JF - Environmetrics

SN - 1180-4009

IS - 4

ER -