Abstract:BACKGROUND:The assignment of a point-level geocode to subjects' residences is an important data assimilation component of many geographic public health studies. Often, these assignments are made by a method known as automated geocoding, which attempts to match each subject's address to an address-ranged street segment georeferenced within a streetline database and then interpolate the position of the address along that segment. Unfortunately, this process results in positional errors. Our study sought to model the probability distribution of positional errors associated with automated geocoding and E911 geocoding.RESULTS:Positional errors were determined for 1423 rural addresses in Carroll County, Iowa as the vector difference between each 100%-matched automated geocode and its true location as determined by orthophoto and parcel information. Errors were also determined for 1449 60%-matched geocodes and 2354 E911 geocodes. Huge (> 15 km) outliers occurred among the 60%-matched geocoding errors; outliers occurred for the other two types of geocoding errors also but were much smaller. E911 geocoding was more accurate (median error length = 44 m) than 100%-matched automated geocoding (median error length = 168 m). The empirical distributions of positional errors associated with 100%-matched automated geocoding and E911 geocoding exhibited a distinctive Greek-cross shape and had many other interesting features that were not capable of being fitted adequately by a single bivariate normal or t distribution. However, mixtures of t distributions with two or three components fit the errors very well.CONCLUSION:Mixtures of bivariate t distributions with few components appear to be flexible enough to fit many positional error datasets associated with geocoding, yet parsimonious enough to be feasible for nascent applications of measurement-error methodology to spatial epidemiology.

An improved BISG for inferring race from surname and geolocation

Addressing Census data problems in race imputation via fully Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding and name supplements

Estimating Racial Disparities When Race is Not Observed

Race and ethnicity data for first, middle, and last names

Can we track the geography of surnames based on bibliographic data?

Large-scale diversity estimation through surname origin inference

Differential Privacy Protections in 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data Do Not Impede Measurement of Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Modeling the Probability Distribution of Positional Errors Incurred by Residential Address Geocoding.

A Bayesian hierarchical small-area population model accounting for data source specific methodologies from American Community Survey, Population Estimates Program, and Decennial Census data

Avoiding bias when inferring race using name-based approaches

Predicting Race and Ethnicity From the Sequence of Characters in a Name

Quantifying the Uncertainty of Imputed Demographic Disparity Estimates: The Dual-Bootstrap

Novel probabilistic models of spatial genetic ancestry with applications to stratification correction in genome-wide association studies

Regional surnames and genetic structure in Great Britain

De-Biasing the Bias: Methods for Improving Disparity Assessments with Noisy Group Measurements

Estimating Spatial Variation in Disease Risk from Locations Coarsened by Incomplete Geocoding

Multiple imputation for sharing precise geographies in public use data

Research Note: Bayesian Record Linkage with Application to Chinese Immigrants in Raleigh-Durham (ChIRDU) Study

Privacy-Preserving Race/Ethnicity Estimation for Algorithmic Bias Measurement in the U.S

Harmonizing Genetic Ancestry and Self-identified Race/Ethnicity in Genome-wide Association Studies.

Improving GWAS performance in underrepresented groups by appropriate modeling of genetics, environment, and sociocultural factors