Zero-state Markov switching count-data models: an empirical assessment.

School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Accident; analysis and prevention (Impact Factor: 1.65). 01/2010; 42(1):122-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.07.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this study, a two-state Markov switching count-data model is proposed as an alternative to zero-inflated models to account for the preponderance of zeros sometimes observed in transportation count data, such as the number of accidents occurring on a roadway segment over some period of time. For this accident-frequency case, zero-inflated models assume the existence of two states: one of the states is a zero-accident count state, which has accident probabilities that are so low that they cannot be statistically distinguished from zero, and the other state is a normal-count state, in which counts can be non-negative integers that are generated by some counting process, for example, a Poisson or negative binomial. While zero-inflated models have come under some criticism with regard to accident-frequency applications - one fact is undeniable - in many applications they provide a statistically superior fit to the data. The Markov switching approach we propose seeks to overcome some of the criticism associated with the zero-accident state of the zero-inflated model by allowing individual roadway segments to switch between zero and normal-count states over time. An important advantage of this Markov switching approach is that it allows for the direct statistical estimation of the specific roadway-segment state (i.e., zero-accident or normal-count state) whereas traditional zero-inflated models do not. To demonstrate the applicability of this approach, a two-state Markov switching negative binomial model (estimated with Bayesian inference) and standard zero-inflated negative binomial models are estimated using five-year accident frequencies on Indiana interstate highway segments. It is shown that the Markov switching model is a viable alternative and results in a superior statistical fit relative to the zero-inflated models.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The severity of traffic-related injuries has been studied by many researchers in recent decades. However, previous research has seldom accounted for the effects of curbed outside shoulders on traffic-related injury severity. This study applies the zero-inflated ordered probit (ZIOP) model to evaluate the influences of curbed outside shoulders, speed limit change, as well as other traditional factors on the injury severity of single-vehicle crashes. Crash data from 2003 to 2007 in the Illinois Highway Safety Database were employed in this study. The ZIOP model assumes that injury severity comes from two distinct sources: injury propensity and injury severity when this crash falls into the injury prone category. The modeling results show that on one hand, single-vehicle crashes that occurring on roadways with curbed outside shoulders are more likely to be injury prone. On the other hand, the existence of a curb decreases the likelihood of severe injury if the crash was in the injury prone category. As a result, the marginal effect analysis implies that the presence of curbs is associated with a higher likelihood of no injury and minor injury involved crashes, but a lower likelihood of incapacitating injury and fatality involved crashes. In addition, in the presence of curbed outside shoulders, the change of speed limit adds no significant impact to the injury severity of single-vehicle crashes. Moreover, the modeling results also highlight some interesting effects caused by vehicle type, light and weather conditions, and drivers' characteristics, as well as crash type and location. Through a comprehensive evaluation of the modeling results, the authors find that the ZIOP model performs well relative to the traditional ordered probit (OP) model, and can serve as an alternative in future studies of crash injury severity.
    Accident; analysis and prevention 04/2013; 57C:55-66. · 1.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical nutrition therapy is reported to contribute to wound healing. However, effective intervention requires an accurate estimation of individual energy needs, which, in turn, relies on accurate methods of assessment. The primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to evaluate the resting energy expenditure (REE) of patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) compared to matched control groups and the potential estimation bias of REE predictive equations. The recommended daily energy requirements of patients with PUs were also assessed, along with their energy balance (daily energy requirement vs intake). All language, original, full-text research articles published between January 1, 1950, and July 31, 2010, were searched through electronic databases. Relevant studies were also identified by reviewing citations. Observational (case-control and case-series) studies providing data on measured REE were initially included. Data extracted were measured REE, predicted REE, and daily energy intake. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to controls (n=101), patients with PUs (n=92) presented higher measured REE (weighted mean 20.7±0.8 vs 23.7±2.2 kcal/kg/day; P<0.0001). In these patients, measured REE was also higher than predicted REE (calculated using the Harris-Benedict formula in all studies; 21.0±1.0 kcal/kg/day; P<0.0001), whereas energy intake (n=78; 21.7±3.1 kcal/kg/day) was significantly lower (P<0.0001) than total daily requirement, which was calculated as 29.4±2.7 kcal/kg/day. Patients with PUs are characterized by increased REE and reduced energy intake. In the estimation of REE using the Harris-Benedict formula, a correction factor (×1.1) should be considered to accurately assess energy needs. Moreover, an energy intake of 30 kcal/kg/day seems appropriate to cover the daily requirements of patients with PUs.
    Journal of the American Dietetic Association 12/2011; 111(12):1868-76. · 3.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The severity of traffic-related injuries has been studied by many researchers in recent decades. However, the evaluation of many factors is still in dispute and, until this point, few studies have taken into account pavement management factors as points of interest. The objective of this article is to evaluate the combined influences of pavement management factors and traditional traffic engineering factors on the injury severity of 2-vehicle crashes. Methods: This study examines 2-vehicle rear-end, sideswipe, and angle collisions that occurred on Tennessee state routes from 2004 to 2008. Both the traditional ordered probit (OP) model and Bayesian ordered probit (BOP) model with weak informative prior were fitted for each collision type. The performances of these models were evaluated based on the parameter estimates and deviances. Results: The results indicated that pavement management factors played identical roles in all 3 collision types. Pavement serviceability produces significant positive effects on the severity of injuries. The pavement distress index (PDI), rutting depth (RD), and rutting depth difference between right and left wheels (RD_df) were not significant in any of these 3 collision types. The effects of traffic engineering factors varied across collision types, except that a few were consistently significant in all 3 collision types, such as annual average daily traffic (AADT), rural-urban location, speed limit, peaking hour, and light condition. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicated that improved pavement quality does not necessarily lessen the severity of injuries when a 2-vehicle crash occurs. The effects of traffic engineering factors are not universal but vary by the type of crash. The study also found that the BOP model with a weak informative prior can be used as an alternative but was not superior to the traditional OP model in terms of overall performance.
    Traffic Injury Prevention 07/2013; 14(5):544-553. · 1.04 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 25, 2014