The use of mixture models for identifying high risks in disease mapping.

Conventional approaches for estimating risks in disease mapping or mortality studies are based on Poisson inference. Frequently, overdispersion is present and this extra variability is modelled by introducing random effects. In this paper we compare two computationally simple approaches for incorporating random effects: one based on a non-parametric mixture model assuming that the population arises from a discrete mixture of Poisson distributions, and the second using a Poisson-normal mixture model which allows for spatial autocorrelation. The comparison is focused on how well each of these methods identify the regions which have high risks. Such identification is important because policy makers may wish to target regions associated with such extreme risks for financial assistance while epidemiologists may wish to target such regions for further study. The Poisson-normal mixture model is presented from both a frequentist, or empirical Bayes, and a fully Bayesian point of view. We compare results obtained with the parametric and non-parametric models specifically in terms of detecting extreme mortality risks, using infant mortality data of British Columbia, Canada, for the period 1981-1985, breast cancer data from Sardinia, for the period 1983-1987, and Scottish lip cancer data for 1975-1980. However, we also investigate the performance of these models in a simulation study. The key finding is that discrete mixture models seem to be able to locate regions which experience high risks; normal mixture models also work well in this regard, and perform substantially better when spatial autocorrelation is present.