In response to citizens’ concerns about elevated cancer incidence in their locales, US CDC proposed publishing cancer incidence at sub-county scales. At these scales, confidence in patients’ residential geolocation becomes a key constraint of geospatial analysis. To support monitoring cancer incidence in sub-county areas, we presented summary metrics to numerically delimit confidence in residential geolocation. We defined a concept of Residential Address Discriminant Power (RADP) as theoretically perfect within all residential addresses and its practical application, i.e., using Emergency Dispatch (ED) Address Point Candidates of Equivalent Likelihood (CEL) to quantify Residential Geolocation Discriminant Power (RGDP) to approximate RADP. Leveraging different productivity of probabilistic, deterministic, and interactive geocoding record linkage, we simultaneously detected CEL for 5,807 cancer cases reported to North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (NC CCR)- in January 2022. Batch-match probabilistic and deterministic algorithms matched 86.0% cases to their unique ED address point candidates or a CEL, 4.4% to parcel site address, and 1.4% to street centerline. Interactively geocoded cases were 8.2%. To demonstrate differences in residential geolocation confidence between enumeration areas, we calculated sRGDP for cancer cases by county and assessed the existing uncertainty within the ED data, i.e., identified duplicate addresses (as CEL) for each ED address point in the 2014 version of the NC ED data and calculated ED_sRGDP by county. Both summary RGDP (sRGDP) (0.62–1.00) and ED_sRGDP (0.36–1.00) varied across counties and were lower in rural counties (p < 0.05); sRGDP correlated with ED_sRGDP (r = 0.42, p < 0.001). The discussion covered multiple conceptual and economic issues attendant to quantifying confidence in residential geolocation and presented a set of organizing principles for future work. Our methodology produces simple metrics – sRGDP – to capture confidence in residential geolocation via leveraging ED address points as CEL. Two facts demonstrate the usefulness of sRGDP as area-based summary metrics: sRGDP variability between counties and the overall lower quality of residential geolocation in rural vs. urban counties. Low sRGDP for the cancer cases within the area of interest helps manage expectations for the uncertainty in cancer incidence data. By supplementing cancer incidence data with sRGDP and ED_sRGDP, CCRs can demonstrate transparency in geocoding success, which may help win citizen trust.

中文翻译：

---

捕获紧急调度地址点作为地理编码候选点，以量化住宅地理位置的有限置信度

为了回应公民对其所在地区癌症发病率上升的担忧，美国疾病预防控制中心提议公布县以下范围内的癌症发病率。在这些尺度上，对患者居住地理位置的信心成为地理空间分析的关键约束。为了支持监测县以下地区的癌症发病率，我们提出了汇总指标，以数字方式界定住宅地理位置的置信度。我们定义了住宅地址判别力（RADP）的概念，理论上在所有住宅地址及其实际应用中都是完美的，即使用紧急调度（ED）等效似然地址点候选（CEL）来量化住宅地理位置判别力（RGDP）来近似 RADP。利用概率性、确定性和交互式地理编码记录链接的不同生产力，我们同时检测了 2022 年 1 月向北卡罗来纳州中央癌症登记处 (NC CCR) 报告的 5,807 例癌症病例的 CEL。批量匹配概率性和确定性算法将 86.0% 的病例与他们独特的 ED 地址点候选或 CEL，4.4% 为地块站点地址，1.4% 为街道中心线。交互式地理编码案例为 8.2%。为了证明普查区之间居住地理位置置信度的差异，我们按县计算了癌症病例的 sRGDP，并评估了 ED 数据中现有的不确定性，即在 2014 年版 NC 中为每个 ED 地址点确定了重复地址（如 CEL）按县计算的 ED 数据和 ED_sRGDP。RGDP 汇总 (sRGDP) (0.62–1.00) 和 ED_sRGDP (0.36–1.00) 因县而异，并且农村县较低 (p < 0.05)；sRGDP 与 ED_sRGDP 相关（r = 0.42，p < 0.001）。讨论涵盖了与量化住宅地理位置信心相关的多个概念和经济问题，并提出了一套未来工作的组织原则。我们的方法产生简单的指标 - sRGDP - 通过利用 ED 地址点作为 CEL 来获取对住宅地理位置的信心。有两个事实证明了 sRGDP 作为基于区域的汇总指标的有用性：县之间的 sRGDP 变异性以及农村县与城市县的住宅地理位置总体质量较低。感兴趣区域内癌症病例的低 sRGDP 有助于管理对癌症发病率数据不确定性的预期。通过使用 sRGDP 和 ED_sRGDP 补充癌症发病率数据，CCR 可以展示地理编码成功的透明度，这可能有助于赢得公民信任。