Scatter plot of predicted IMD score (modelled and postcode linked) versus gold standard score for Havering practices

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "A method for modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS"</p><p>http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/38</p><p>International Journal of Health Geographics 2007;6():38-38.</p><p>Published online 6 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2045089.</p><p></p

Distribution for input parameters.

<p>Distribution for each input to the LR1991 simulator used for generating the design data and test data, and the distribution of each input used for undertaking sensitivity analysis in the emulator. U denotes a uniform distribution and N a normal distribution, with mean and variance given in brackets.</p><p>Distribution for input parameters.</p

Differences in IMD 2004 scores (predicted score - gold standard score) against their mean for Havering practices

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "A method for modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS"</p><p>http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/38</p><p>International Journal of Health Geographics 2007;6():38-38.</p><p>Published online 6 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2045089.</p><p></p

Differences in IMD 2004 scores (predicted score - gold standard score) against their mean for Warrington practices

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "A method for modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS"</p><p>http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/38</p><p>International Journal of Health Geographics 2007;6():38-38.</p><p>Published online 6 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2045089.</p><p></p

Design data and test data obtained from 220 runs of the LR1991 model for eight outputs and six inputs.

<p>Each plot shows combinations of inputs and outputs, with 200 coloured points indicating design data used to fit the emulators, and 20 grey points showing test data used to validate the emulator.</p

Outputs produced by the LR91 model.

<p>(a) Action potential biomarkers used as model outputs to characterise the model. (b) Action potential time series from 200 runs of the LR1991 model used as design data for the GP emulator.</p

Differences in IMD 2004 scores (predicted score - gold standard score) against their mean for Doncaster practices

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "A method for modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS"</p><p>http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/38</p><p>International Journal of Health Geographics 2007;6():38-38.</p><p>Published online 6 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2045089.</p><p></p

Scatter plot of predicted IMD score (modelled and postcode linked) versus gold standard score for Warrington practices

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "A method for modelling GP practice level deprivation scores using GIS"</p><p>http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/38</p><p>International Journal of Health Geographics 2007;6():38-38.</p><p>Published online 6 Sep 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2045089.</p><p></p

Validation of APD₉₀ emulator output against test data output.

<p>This plot shows the difference in the mean APD₉₀ predicted by the emulator and APD₉₀ obtained from the simulator for each of the 20 test data. The difference is calibrated as the number of standard deviations, and the red lines indicate ±2 standard deviations.</p

Emulator characteristics.

<p>For each of the outputs, column 2 shows the mean of the design data, obtained from inputs that varied across the normalised range 0..1 given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0130252#pone.0130252.t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>. Columns 3-5 show the expectation of emulator output (<i>E</i>*[<i>E</i>[<i>f</i>(<b>x</b>))]), the variance of this expectation <i>Var</i>*[<i>E</i>(<i>f</i>(<b>x</b>))], and coefficient of variation (</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><mi>E</mi><mo>*</mo></p><mo stretchy="false">[</mo><mi>V</mi><mi>a</mi><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><mi>f</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo>x<mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo stretchy="false">]</mo><p></p><p></p><mo>/</mo><p><mi>E</mi><mo>*</mo></p><mo stretchy="false">[</mo><mi>E</mi><mo stretchy="false">[</mo><mi>f</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo>x<mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo stretchy="false">]</mo><mo stretchy="false">]</mo><mo>×</mo><mn>100</mn><p></p><p></p><p></p>) of each emulator, when all of the inputs were assigned a standardised mean of 0.5, and a standardised variance of 0.04 (i.e. 95% confidence intervals of 0.108–0.892). Column 7 shows the Mahanalobis distance between each fitted emulator and an additional 20 test points; a good fit was indicated by a value falling in a distribution with a mean of 20 and a standard deviation of 6.8.<p></p><p>Emulator characteristics.</p