Table 3.
Performance of cluster detection methods on one replicated dataset.
| Scan-c | Scan-e0 | FleX | GA-1 | Double | Mlink | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 |
| No. LZ | 18 | 18 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 13 |
| True Positive LZ1 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 7 |
| Sensitivity2 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.73 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.64 |
| PPV3 | 0.56 | 0.61 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.54 |
| Cost4 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 10 |
Results for the sixth cluster scenario (compact cluster, E = 50.1 cases, covering 11 LZ), with a relative risk of 2.
Results based on 250 Monte Carlo replications. Scan-c: circular scan method, Scan-e0: elliptic scan method with no penalty, FleX: unrestricted flexible scan method, GA-1: strongly penalized genetic algorithm, Double and Mlink: dynamic minimum spanning tree method with double and maximum link connections, respectively. No. LZ: number of living zones in the detected cluster. 1 number of living zones in the intersection of the true and detected clusters. 2 sensitivity: proportion of living zones in the true cluster that are correctly detected. 3 proportion of living zones in the detected cluster that are in the "true" cluster. 4 number of living zones that are either missed or erroneously detected.