2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.sste.2019.100302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different software implementations for spatial disease mapping

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We performed the Bayesian analysis using an integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) program in R software [ 21 ]. The deterministic algorithm approach for Bayesian inference in INLA has been proven to reduce the computing time and provides accurate results [ 22 , 23 ]. In Bayesian inference, prior distributions for parameters to be estimated were specified before modelling was commenced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We performed the Bayesian analysis using an integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) program in R software [ 21 ]. The deterministic algorithm approach for Bayesian inference in INLA has been proven to reduce the computing time and provides accurate results [ 22 , 23 ]. In Bayesian inference, prior distributions for parameters to be estimated were specified before modelling was commenced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With hierarchically structured models, including several components with different structures at the latent layer, INLA is typically faster and simpler to tune than simulation-based Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods (Illian, Sørbye and Rue (2012), Opitz (2017), Rue and Held (2005), Rue, Martino and Chopin (2009), Rue et al (2016)). INLA is an approximate inference method, but the approximation quality is generally superior to MCMC-based approaches when using similar computation times (Teng, Nathoo and Johnson (2017), Vranckx, Neyens and Faes (2019)), especially in cases where achieving good mixing properties within MCMC is difficult. The INLA method can be applied to models where the observations are conditionally independent with respect to a latent multivariate Gaussian random vector which parameterizes the observation model.…”
Section: Approximate Bayesian Inferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specific values of α 1 = α 2 = 0.001 for this prior distribution are often employed in many applications (see [17]), so that ψ ∼ G(0.001, 0.001), which, given that its mean is equal to 1 and its variance equal to 1000, a large value, it can be considered as a vague prior. Alternative frequently used values that can be found in the literature are, α 1 = 1 and α 2 = 0.01, in Vranckx, Neyens and Faes [30], α 1 = 0.05, α 2 = 5 × 10 −4 in Best, Richardson and Thomson [18], α 1 = 1 and α 2 = 0.5 in Carroll, Lawson, Faes, Kirby, Aregay and Watjou [29], α 1 = α 2 = 1 × 10 −4 in Cepeda-Cuervo, Córdoba and Núñez-Antón [22], among others. Nevertheless, the choice of these parameters must be based on their adequacy to the specific application considered and its adverse effects on the posterior inference should be appropriately assessed and studied.…”
Section: Bayesian Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, they highlighted the much shorter computation time that R-INLA required for the fitting of a model when compared to OpenBUGS. In Vranckx, Neyens and Faes [30], an extensive comparison of the fitting of the BYM model with OpenBUGS, CARBayes, R-INLA and other available software packages was also reported by fitting data from young people receiving diabetes medication in Belgian municipalities for the year 2014. Although no covariates were used in their analysis, the authors were able to identify locations with increased relative risk by fitting the BYM model to the data set under study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%