Table 4 Comparison of model goodness of fit using nonspatial Poisson regression and spatial Poisson models with conditional autoregressive (CAR), and spatial point referenced (SPR), autocorrelation structures
| Â | Model | Â | -2Log-Likelihood | AIC | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Esophageal cancer | Poisson regression with uncorrelated random effect | Female | 511.3 | 517.2 | 521.8 |
| Â | Â | Male | 498.2 | 501.3 | 510.9 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 453.2 | 455.5 | 458.4 |
| Â | Spatial Poisson regression with Gaussian SPR correlation function | Female | 481.3 | 485.2 | 491.6 |
| Â | Â | Male | 453.7 | 455.0 | 460.3 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 446.5 | 448.5 | 451.5 |
| Â | Spatial Poisson regression with CAR correlation function | Female | 470.9 | 476.9 | 485.9 |
| Â | Â | Male | 411.5 | 417.5 | 426.5 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 332.0 | 338.0 | 347.0 |
Gastric cancer | Poisson regression with uncorrelated random effect | Female | 560.5 | 566.5 | 575.5 |
| Â | Â | Male | 485.2 | 488.0 | 491.2 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 463.4 | 468.3 | 471.8 |
| Â | Spatial Poisson regression with Gaussian SPR correlation function | Female | 483.2 | 488.0 | 491.1 |
| Â | Â | Male | 469.1 | 471.0 | 580.5 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 447.8 | 453.8 | 462.8 |
| Â | Spatial Poisson regression with CAR correlation function | Female | 511.3 | 519.6 | 523.4 |
| Â | Â | Male | 467.0 | 473.0 | 482.1 |
| Â | Â | Both sexes | 384.0 | 386.0 | 389.0 |