Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025

Using a Real-Time Locating System to Measure Walking Activity Associated with Wandering Behaviors Among Institutionalized Older Adults
Published on: February 8, 2019
Capturing emergency dispatch address points as geocoding candidates to quantify delimited confidence in residential
Christian A Klaus1, Kevin A Henry2,3, Dora Il'yasova4,5
1North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Raleigh, NC, USA. Christian.klaus@dhhs.nc.gov.
New metrics quantify confidence in patient addresses for cancer mapping. Lower confidence was found in rural areas, aiding transparency in cancer incidence data and building public trust.
Area of Science:
- Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Public Health Surveillance
- Spatial Epidemiology
- Data Quality Assessment
Background:
- US CDC aims to publish cancer incidence at sub-county scales due to public concerns.
- Accurate residential geolocation is critical for geospatial analysis at finer scales.
- Confidence in patient address data is a key constraint for sub-county cancer monitoring.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and present summary metrics for quantifying confidence in residential geolocation.
- To approximate theoretical Residential Address Discriminant Power (RADP) using practical geocoding data.
- To support the monitoring of cancer incidence in sub-county areas with reliable geolocation data.
Main Methods:
- Defined Residential Address Discriminant Power (RADP) and its practical approximation, Residential Geolocation Discriminant Power (RGDP).
- Utilized Emergency Dispatch (ED) Address Point Candidates of Equivalent Likelihood (CEL) to quantify RGDP.
- Applied probabilistic, deterministic, and interactive geocoding to link 5,807 cancer cases from NC CCR.
Main Results:
- Batch-match geocoding (probabilistic/deterministic) achieved high linkage rates (86.0% to ED points/CEL).
- Calculated summary RGDP (sRGDP) and ED-based RGDP (ED_sRGDP) across North Carolina counties.
- Found significant variability in sRGDP and ED_sRGDP, with lower values in rural counties (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
- Developed sRGDP metrics to capture confidence in residential geolocation using ED address points.
- Demonstrated the utility of sRGDP through its variability across counties and lower values in rural areas.
- Advocated for supplementing cancer incidence data with sRGDP and ED_sRGDP for transparency and public trust.
Related Concept Videos
Design Example: Identifying the Locations of Monuments in the Field Using Global Positioning System Device
Errors in Global Positioning System
Types of Global Positioning System Surveys
Field Application of Global Positioning System
Selected Data About Geographic Locations
Applications of GIS: Disaster Management and Emergency Response

