Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The analysis of disease risk is often considered via relative risk. The comparison of relative risk estimation methods with "true risk" scenarios has been considered on various occasions. However, there has been little examination of how well competing methods perform when the focus is clustering of risk. In this paper, a simulated evaluation of a range of potential spatial risk models and a range of measures that can be used for (a) cluster goodness of fit, (b) cluster diagnostics are considered. Results suggest that exceedence probability is a poor measure of hot spot clustering because of model dependence, whereas residual-based methods are less model dependent and perform better. Local deviance information criteria measures perform well, but conditional predictive ordinate measures yield a high false positive rate.

Original publication




Journal article


Statistical methods in medical research

Publication Date





531 - 551


Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA


Humans, Disease, Cluster Analysis, Risk, Models, Theoretical