Table 1.
SaTScan and EMST method applied to West Nile virus
| n | SaTScan |
EMST |
Comparisons |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SN | FTC | FMLC | SN | FTC | FMLC | Δ SN, % | Δ FTC, % | Δ FMLC, % | |
| 400 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.53 | +0.5 | +16 | −14 |
| 600 | 1.00 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.48 | +0.2 | +9.1 | −11 |
| 800 | 0.99 | 0.58 | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.61 | 0.44 | +0.7 | +5.1 | −8.5 |
| 1,000 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.44 | 0.99 | 0.55 | 0.41 | −0.4 | −0.1 | −6.8 |
| 1,200 | 0.89 | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.50 | 0.38 | +8.0 | +3.4 | −4.6 |
n, no. of background cases added to cluster cases; SN, average sensitivity; FTC, average fraction of true cluster detected; FMLC, average fraction of most likely cluster coinciding with the true cluster (averaged over data sets for which a significant cluster was found); Δ, percent difference.