Cargando…

Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria

BACKGROUND: Geostatistical analysis of health data is increasingly used to model spatial variation in malaria prevalence, burden, and other metrics. Traditional inference methods for geostatistical modelling are notoriously computationally intensive, motivating the development of newer, approximate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wong, Spencer, Flegg, Jennifer A., Golding, Nick, Kandanaarachchi, Sevvandi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37990242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04760-7
_version_ 1785148774630293504
author Wong, Spencer
Flegg, Jennifer A.
Golding, Nick
Kandanaarachchi, Sevvandi
author_facet Wong, Spencer
Flegg, Jennifer A.
Golding, Nick
Kandanaarachchi, Sevvandi
author_sort Wong, Spencer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Geostatistical analysis of health data is increasingly used to model spatial variation in malaria prevalence, burden, and other metrics. Traditional inference methods for geostatistical modelling are notoriously computationally intensive, motivating the development of newer, approximate methods for geostatistical analysis or, more broadly, computational modelling of spatial processes. The appeal of faster methods is particularly great as the size of the region and number of spatial locations being modelled increases. METHODS: This work presents an applied comparison of four proposed ‘fast’ computational methods for spatial modelling and the software provided to implement them—Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA), tree boosting with Gaussian processes and mixed effect models (GPBoost), Fixed Rank Kriging (FRK) and Spatial Random Forests (SpRF). The four methods are illustrated by estimating malaria prevalence on two different spatial scales—country and continent. The performance of the four methods is compared on these data in terms of accuracy, computation time, and ease of implementation. RESULTS: Two of these methods—SpRF and GPBoost—do not scale well as the data size increases, and so are likely to be infeasible for larger-scale analysis problems. The two remaining methods—INLA and FRK—do scale well computationally, however the resulting model fits are very sensitive to the user’s modelling assumptions and parameter choices. The binomial observation distribution commonly used for disease prevalence mapping with INLA fails to account for small-scale overdispersion present in the malaria prevalence data, which can lead to poor predictions. Selection of an appropriate alternative such as the Beta-binomial distribution is required to produce a reliable model fit. The small-scale random effect term in FRK overcomes this pitfall, but FRK model estimates are very reliant on providing a sufficient number and appropriate configuration of basis functions. Unfortunately the computation time for FRK increases rapidly with increasing basis resolution. CONCLUSIONS: INLA and FRK both enable scalable geostatistical modelling of malaria prevalence data. However care must be taken when using both methods to assess the fit of the model to data and plausibility of predictions, in order to select appropriate model assumptions and parameters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10664662
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106646622023-11-21 Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria Wong, Spencer Flegg, Jennifer A. Golding, Nick Kandanaarachchi, Sevvandi Malar J Research BACKGROUND: Geostatistical analysis of health data is increasingly used to model spatial variation in malaria prevalence, burden, and other metrics. Traditional inference methods for geostatistical modelling are notoriously computationally intensive, motivating the development of newer, approximate methods for geostatistical analysis or, more broadly, computational modelling of spatial processes. The appeal of faster methods is particularly great as the size of the region and number of spatial locations being modelled increases. METHODS: This work presents an applied comparison of four proposed ‘fast’ computational methods for spatial modelling and the software provided to implement them—Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA), tree boosting with Gaussian processes and mixed effect models (GPBoost), Fixed Rank Kriging (FRK) and Spatial Random Forests (SpRF). The four methods are illustrated by estimating malaria prevalence on two different spatial scales—country and continent. The performance of the four methods is compared on these data in terms of accuracy, computation time, and ease of implementation. RESULTS: Two of these methods—SpRF and GPBoost—do not scale well as the data size increases, and so are likely to be infeasible for larger-scale analysis problems. The two remaining methods—INLA and FRK—do scale well computationally, however the resulting model fits are very sensitive to the user’s modelling assumptions and parameter choices. The binomial observation distribution commonly used for disease prevalence mapping with INLA fails to account for small-scale overdispersion present in the malaria prevalence data, which can lead to poor predictions. Selection of an appropriate alternative such as the Beta-binomial distribution is required to produce a reliable model fit. The small-scale random effect term in FRK overcomes this pitfall, but FRK model estimates are very reliant on providing a sufficient number and appropriate configuration of basis functions. Unfortunately the computation time for FRK increases rapidly with increasing basis resolution. CONCLUSIONS: INLA and FRK both enable scalable geostatistical modelling of malaria prevalence data. However care must be taken when using both methods to assess the fit of the model to data and plausibility of predictions, in order to select appropriate model assumptions and parameters. BioMed Central 2023-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10664662/ /pubmed/37990242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04760-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wong, Spencer
Flegg, Jennifer A.
Golding, Nick
Kandanaarachchi, Sevvandi
Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title_full Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title_fullStr Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title_short Comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
title_sort comparison of new computational methods for spatial modelling of malaria
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37990242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-023-04760-7
work_keys_str_mv AT wongspencer comparisonofnewcomputationalmethodsforspatialmodellingofmalaria
AT fleggjennifera comparisonofnewcomputationalmethodsforspatialmodellingofmalaria
AT goldingnick comparisonofnewcomputationalmethodsforspatialmodellingofmalaria
AT kandanaarachchisevvandi comparisonofnewcomputationalmethodsforspatialmodellingofmalaria