Identification of errors or anomalous values, collectively considered outliers, assists in exploring data or through removing outliers improves statistical analysis. In biomechanics, outlier detection methods have explored the ‘shape’ of the entire cycles, although exploring fewer points using a ‘moving-window’ may be advantageous. Hence, the aim was to develop a moving-window method for detecting trials with outliers in intra-participant time-series data. Outliers were detected through two stages for the strides (mean 38 cycles) from treadmill running. Cycles were removed in stage 1 for one-dimensional (spatial) outliers at each time point using the median absolute deviation, and in stage 2 for two-dimensional (spatial–temporal) outliers using a moving window standard deviation. Significance levels of the t-statistic were used for scaling. Fewer cycles were removed with smaller scaling and smaller window size, requiring more stringent scaling at stage 1 (mean 3.5 cycles removed for 0.0001 scaling) than at stage 2 (mean 2.6 cycles removed for 0.01 scaling with a window size of 1). Settings in the supplied Matlab code should be customised to each data set, and outliers assessed to justify whether to retain or remove those cycles. The method is effective in identifying trials with outliers in intra-participant time series data.

Consider a scenario in which the data owner has some private/sensitive data and wants a data miner to access it for studying important patterns without revealing the sensitive information. Privacy preserving data mining aims to solve this problem by randomly transforming the data prior to its release to data miners. Previous work only considered the case of linear data perturbations — additive, multiplicative or a combination of both for studying the usefulness of the perturbed output. In this paper, we discuss nonlinear data distortion using potentially nonlinear random data transformation and show how it can be useful for privacy preserving anomaly detection from sensitive datasets. We develop bounds on the expected accuracy of the nonlinear distortion and also quantify privacy by using standard definitions. The highlight of this approach is to allow a user to control the amount of privacy by varying the degree of nonlinearity. We show how our general transformation can be used for anomaly detection in practice for two specific problem instances: a linear model and a popular nonlinear model using the sigmoid function. We also analyze the proposed nonlinear transformation in full generality and then show that for specific cases it is distance preserving. A main contribution of this paper is the discussion between the invertibility of a transformation and privacy preservation and the application of these techniques to outlier detection. Experiments conducted on real-life datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

State politics researchers commonly employ ordinary least squares (OLS) regression or one of its variants to test linear hypotheses. However, OLS is easily influenced by outliers and thus can produce misleading results when the error term distribution has heavy tails. Here we demonstrate that median regression (MR), an alternative to OLS that conditions the median of the dependent variable (rather than the mean) on the independent variables, can be a solution to this problem. Then we propose and validate a hypothesis test that applied researchers can use to select between OLS and MR in a given sample of data. Finally, we present two examples from state politics research in which (1) the test selects MR over OLS and (2) differences in results between the two methods could lead to different substantive inferences. We conclude that MR and the test we propose can improve linear models in state politics research.

Consider a scenario in which the data owner has some private/sensitive data and wants a data miner to access it for studying important patterns without revealing the sensitive information. Privacy preserving data mining aims to solve this problem by randomly transforming the data prior to its release to data miners. Previous work only considered the case of linear data perturbations — additive, multiplicative or a combination of both for studying the usefulness of the perturbed output. In this paper, we discuss nonlinear data distortion using potentially nonlinear random data transformation and show how it can be useful for privacy preserving anomaly detection from sensitive datasets. We develop bounds on the expected accuracy of the nonlinear distortion and also quantify privacy by using standard definitions. The highlight of this approach is to allow a user to control the amount of privacy by varying the degree of nonlinearity. We show how our general transformation can be used for anomaly detection in practice for two specific problem instances: a linear model and a popular nonlinear model using the sigmoid function. We also analyze the proposed nonlinear transformation in full generality and then show that for specific cases it is distance preserving. A main contribution of this paper is the discussion between the invertibility of a transformation and privacy preservation and the application of these techniques to outlier detection. Experiments conducted on real-life datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

The problem of distance-based outlier detection is difficult to solve efficiently in very large datasets because of potential quadratic time complexity. We address this problem and develop sequential and distributed algorithms that are significantly more efficient than state-of-the-art methods while still guaranteeing the same outliers. By combining simple but effective indexing and disk block accessing techniques, we have developed a sequential algorithm iOrca that is up to an order-of-magnitude faster than the state-of-the-art. The indexing scheme is based on sorting the data points in order of increasing distance from a fixed reference point and then accessing those points based on this sorted order. To speed up the basic outlier detection technique, we develop two distributed algorithms (DOoR and iDOoR) for modern distributed multi-core clusters of machines, connected on a ring topology. The first algorithm passes data blocks from each machine around the ring, incrementally updating the nearest neighbors of the points passed. By maintaining a cutoff threshold, it is able to prune a large number of points in a distributed fashion. The second distributed algorithm extends this basic idea with the indexing scheme discussed earlier. In our experiments, both distributed algorithms exhibit significant improvements compared to the state-of-the-art distributed methods.

Consider a scenario in which the data owner has some private/sensitive data and wants a data miner to access it for studying important patterns without revealing the sensitive information. Privacy preserving data mining aims to solve this problem by randomly transforming the data prior to its release to data miners. Previous work only considered the case of linear data perturbations — additive, multiplicative or a combination of both for studying the usefulness of the perturbed output. In this paper, we discuss nonlinear data distortion using potentially nonlinear random data transformation and show how it can be useful for privacy preserving anomaly detection from sensitive datasets. We develop bounds on the expected accuracy of the nonlinear distortion and also quantify privacy by using standard definitions. The highlight of this approach is to allow a user to control the amount of privacy by varying the degree of nonlinearity. We show how our general transformation can be used for anomaly detection in practice for two specific problem instances: a linear model and a popular nonlinear model using the sigmoid function. We also analyze the proposed nonlinear transformation in full generality and then show that for specific cases it is distance preserving. A main contribution of this paper is the discussion between the invertibility of a transformation and privacy preservation and the application of these techniques to outlier detection. Experiments conducted on real-life datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of sensor data collected over the last decade for different monitoring tasks. For example, petabytes of earth science data are collected from modern satellites, in-situ sensors and different climate models. Similarly, huge amount of flight operational data is downloaded for different commercial airlines. These different types of datasets need to be analyzed for finding outliers. Information extraction from such rich data sources using advanced data mining methodologies is a challenging task not only due to the massive volume of data, but also because these datasets are physically stored at different geographical locations with only a subset of features available at any location. Moving these petabytes of data to a single location may waste a lot of bandwidth. To solve this problem, in this paper, we present a novel algorithm which can identify outliers in the entire data without moving all the data to a single location. The method we propose only centralizes a very small sample from the different data subsets at different locations. We analytically prove and experimentally verify that the algorithm offers high accuracy compared to complete centralization with only a fraction of the communication cost. We show that our algorithm is highly relevant to both earth sciences and aeronautics by describing applications in these domains. The performance of the algorithm is demonstrated on two large publicly available datasets: (1) the NASA MODIS satellite images and (2) a simulated aviation dataset generated by the ‘Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation’ (CMAPSS).

There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of sensor data collected over the last decade for different monitoring tasks. For example, petabytes of earth science data are collected from modern satellites, in-situ sensors and different climate models. Similarly, huge amount of flight operational data is downloaded for different commercial airlines. These different types of datasets need to be analyzed for finding outliers. Information extraction from such rich data sources using advanced data mining methodologies is a challenging task not only due to the massive volume of data, but also because these datasets are physically stored at different geographical locations with only a subset of features available at any location. Moving these petabytes of data to a single location may waste a lot of bandwidth. To solve this problem, in this paper, we present a novel algorithm which can identify outliers in the entire data without moving all the data to a single location. The method we propose only centralizes a very small sample from the different data subsets at different locations. We analytically prove and experimentally verify that the algorithm offers high accuracy compared to complete centralization with only a fraction of the communication cost. We show that our algorithm is highly relevant to both earth sciences and aeronautics by describing applications in these domains. The performance of the algorithm is demonstrated on two large publicly available datasets: (1) the NASA MODIS satellite images and (2) a simulated aviation dataset generated by the ‘Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation’ (CMAPSS).

Snapshot img

Anomaly Detection Market Size 2025-2029

The anomaly detection market size is valued to increase by USD 4.44 billion, at a CAGR of 14.4% from 2024 to 2029. Anomaly detection tools gaining traction in BFSI will drive the anomaly detection market.

Major Market Trends & Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 43% growth during the forecast period.
By Deployment - Cloud segment was valued at USD 1.75 billion in 2023
By Component - Solution segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 173.26 million
Market Future Opportunities: USD 4441.70 million
CAGR from 2024 to 2029 : 14.4%

Market Summary

Anomaly detection, a critical component of advanced analytics, is witnessing significant adoption across various industries, with the financial services sector leading the charge. The increasing incidence of internal threats and cybersecurity frauds necessitates the need for robust anomaly detection solutions. These tools help organizations identify unusual patterns and deviations from normal behavior, enabling proactive response to potential threats and ensuring operational efficiency. For instance, in a supply chain context, anomaly detection can help identify discrepancies in inventory levels or delivery schedules, leading to cost savings and improved customer satisfaction. In the realm of compliance, anomaly detection can assist in maintaining regulatory adherence by flagging unusual transactions or activities, thereby reducing the risk of penalties and reputational damage.
According to recent research, organizations that implement anomaly detection solutions experience a reduction in error rates by up to 25%. This improvement not only enhances operational efficiency but also contributes to increased customer trust and satisfaction. Despite these benefits, challenges persist, including data quality and the need for real-time processing capabilities. As the market continues to evolve, advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence are expected to address these challenges and drive further growth.

What will be the Size of the Anomaly Detection Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free Sample

How is the Anomaly Detection Market Segmented ?

The anomaly detection industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD million' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

Deployment

  Cloud
  On-premises


Component

  Solution
  Services


End-user

  BFSI
  IT and telecom
  Retail and e-commerce
  Manufacturing
  Others


Technology

  Big data analytics
  AI and ML
  Data mining and business intelligence


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada
    Mexico


  Europe

    France
    Germany
    Spain
    UK


  APAC

    China
    India
    Japan


  Rest of World (ROW)

By Deployment Insights

The cloud segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

The market is witnessing significant growth, driven by the increasing adoption of advanced technologies such as machine learning algorithms, predictive modeling tools, and real-time monitoring systems. Businesses are increasingly relying on anomaly detection solutions to enhance their root cause analysis, improve system health indicators, and reduce false positives. This is particularly true in sectors where data is generated in real-time, such as cybersecurity threat detection, network intrusion detection, and fraud detection systems. Cloud-based anomaly detection solutions are gaining popularity due to their flexibility, scalability, and cost-effectiveness.

This growth is attributed to cloud-based solutions' quick deployment, real-time data visibility, and customization capabilities, which are offered at flexible payment options like monthly subscriptions and pay-as-you-go models. Companies like Anodot, Ltd, Cisco Systems Inc, IBM Corp, and SAS Institute Inc provide both cloud-based and on-premise anomaly detection solutions. Anomaly detection methods include outlier detection, change point detection, and statistical process control. Data preprocessing steps, such as data mining techniques and feature engineering processes, are crucial in ensuring accurate anomaly detection. Data visualization dashboards and alert fatigue mitigation techniques help in managing and interpreting the vast amounts of data generated.

Network traffic analysis, log file analysis, and sensor data integration are essential components of anomaly detection systems. Additionally, risk management frameworks, drift detection algorithms, time series forecasting, and performance degradation detection are vital in maintaining system performance and capacity planning.

As an important technique for data pre-processing, outlier detection plays a crucial role in various real applications and has gained substantial attention, especially in medical fields. Despite the importance of outlier detection, many existing methods are vulnerable to the distribution of outliers and require prior knowledge, such as the outlier proportion. To address this problem to some extent, this article proposes an adaptive mini-minimum spanning tree-based outlier detection (MMOD) method, which utilizes a novel distance measure by scaling the Euclidean distance. For datasets containing different densities and taking on different shapes, our method can identify outliers without prior knowledge of outlier percentages. The results on both real-world medical data corpora and intuitive synthetic datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method compared to state-of-the-art methods.

Analyzing sales data is essential for any business looking to make informed decisions and optimize its operations. In this project, we will utilize Microsoft Excel and Power Query to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Superstore sales data. Our primary objectives will be to establish meaningful connections between various data sheets, ensure data quality, and calculate critical metrics such as the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and discount values. Below are the key steps and elements of this analysis:

1- Data Import and Transformation:

• Gather and import relevant sales data from various sources into Excel.
• Utilize Power Query to clean, transform, and structure the data for analysis.
• Merge and link different data sheets to create a cohesive dataset, ensuring that all data fields are connected logically.

2- Data Quality Assessment:

• Perform data quality checks to identify and address issues like missing values, duplicates, outliers, and data inconsistencies.
• Standardize data formats and ensure that all data is in a consistent, usable state.

3- Calculating COGS:

• Determine the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) for each product sold by considering factors like purchase price, shipping costs, and any additional expenses.
• Apply appropriate formulas and calculations to determine COGS accurately.

4- Discount Analysis:

• Analyze the discount values offered on products to understand their impact on sales and profitability.
• Calculate the average discount percentage, identify trends, and visualize the data using charts or graphs.

5- Sales Metrics:

• Calculate and analyze various sales metrics, such as total revenue, profit margins, and sales growth.
• Utilize Excel functions to compute these metrics and create visuals for better insights.

6- Visualization:

• Create visualizations, such as charts, graphs, and pivot tables, to present the data in an understandable and actionable format.
• Visual representations can help identify trends, outliers, and patterns in the data.

7- Report Generation:

• Compile the findings and insights into a well-structured report or dashboard, making it easy for stakeholders to understand and make informed decisions.

Throughout this analysis, the goal is to provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Superstore's sales performance. By using Excel and Power Query, we can efficiently manage and analyze the data, ensuring that the insights gained contribute to the store's growth and success.

DISTRIBUTED ANOMALY DETECTION USING SATELLITE DATA FROM MULTIPLE MODALITIES KANISHKA BHADURI, KAMALIKA DAS, AND PETR VOTAVA** Abstract. There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of Earth Science data over the last decade from modern satellites, in-situ sensors and different climate models. All these datasets need to be co-analyzed for finding interesting patterns or for searching for extremes or outliers. Information extraction from such rich data sources using advanced data mining methodologies is a challenging task not only due to the massive volume of data, but also because these datasets ate physically stored at different geographical locations. Moving these petabytes of data over the network to a single _location may waste a lot of bandwidth, and can take days to finish. To solve this problem, in this paper, we present a novel algorithm which can identify outliers in the global data without moving all the data to one _location. The algorithm is highly accurate (close to 99%) and requires centralizing less than 5% of the entire dataset. We demonstrate the performance of the algorithm using data obtained from the NASA MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite images.

There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of Earth Science data over the last decade from modern satellites, in-situ sensors and different climate models. All these datasets need to be co-analyzed for finding interesting patterns or for searching for extremes or outliers. Information extraction from such rich data sources using advanced data mining methodologies is a challenging task not only due to the massive volume of data, but also because these datasets are physically stored at different geographical locations. Moving these petabytes of data over the network to a single location may waste a lot of bandwidth, and can take days to finish. To solve this problem, in this paper, we present a novel algorithm which can identify outliers in the global data without moving all the data to one location. The algorithm is highly accurate (close to 99%) and requires centralizing less than 5% of the entire dataset. We demonstrate the performance of the algorithm using data obtained from the NASA MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite images.

Outlier removal is a fundamental data processing task to ensure the quality of scanned point cloud data (PCD), which is becoming increasing important in industrial applications and reverse engineering. Acquired scanned PCD is usually noisy, sparse and temporarily incoherent. Thus the processing of scanned data is typically an ill-posed problem. In the paper, we present a simple and effective method based on two geometrical characteristics constraints to trim the noisy points. One of the geometrical characteristics is the local density information and another is the deviation from the local fitting plane. The local density based method provides a preprocessing step, which could remove those sparse outlier and isolated outlier. The non-isolated outlier removal in this paper depends on a local projection method, which placing those points onto objects. There is no doubt that the deviation of any point from the local fitting plane should be a criterion to reduce the noisy points. The experimental results demonstrate the ability to remove the noisy point from various man-made objects consisting of complex outlier.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with coronary heart disease was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with coronary heart disease was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with coronary heart disease, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have coronary heart diseaseB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have coronary heart diseaseAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have coronary heart disease, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from coronary heart disease, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with coronary heart disease within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of coronary heart disease, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of coronary heart disease.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of physical and mental illnesses that are linked with obesity and inactivity. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Depression (in adults aged 18+)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:- The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment area- Of the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 8 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.LIMITATIONS1. GPs do not have catchments that are mutually exclusive from each other: they overlap, with some geographic areas being covered by 30+ practices. This dataset should be viewed in combination with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset to identify where there are areas that are covered by multiple GP practices but at least one of those GP practices did not provide data. Results of the analysis in these areas should be interpreted with caution, particularly if the levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses appear to be significantly lower than the immediate surrounding areas.2. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).3. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.4. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of these illnesses. TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:- Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of cancer (in persons of all ages). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to cancer (in persons of all ages).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (all ages) with cancer was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with cancer was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with cancer, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have cancerAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have cancer, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from cancer, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with cancer within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of cancer, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of cancer.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.MSOA boundaries: © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021.Population data: Mid-2019 (June 30) Population Estimates for Middle Layer Super Output Areas in England and Wales. © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown Copyright 2020.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital; © Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2021. © Crown Copyright 2020.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

Overview Basic meteorological measurements. Data Quality The Argonne National Laboratory Surface Meteorology Systems (MET) measurements collected at collocated radar wind profiler sites are visually inspected weekly for data outliers or instrument problems. Of note, the surface MET stations have had few data quality issues. The final dataset provided to the DAP will have all outliers or problematic data removed using automated and visual processes, including minimum/maximum checks, in a similar process as is used for ARM MET data. Uncertainty The uncertainties of the MET measurements are taken to be the accuracy of the individual measurements as specified by the instrument manufacturers. Constraints There are no constraints on MET measurements concerning acceptable wind directions or meteorological conditions.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of physical illnesses that are linked with obesity and inactivity. Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to:- Asthma (in persons of all ages)- Cancer (in persons of all ages)- Chronic kidney disease (in adults aged 18+)- Coronary heart disease (in persons of all ages)- Diabetes mellitus (in persons aged 17+)- Hypertension (in persons of all ages)- Stroke and transient ischaemic attack (in persons of all ages)This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.For each of the above illnesses, the percentage of each MSOA’s population with that illness was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:- The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment area- Of the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of patients registered with each GP that have that illnessThe estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with each illness was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with each illness, within the relevant age range.For each illness, each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have that illnessAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA predicted to have that illness, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where a large number of people are predicted to suffer from an illness, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with that illness within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.The scores for each of the 7 illnesses were added together then converted to a relative score between 1 – 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best), to give an overall score for each MSOA: a score close to 1 would indicate that an area has high predicted levels of all obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, and these are areas where the local population could benefit the most from interventions to address those illnesses. A score close to 0 would indicate very low predicted levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses and therefore interventions might not be required.LIMITATIONS1. GPs do not have catchments that are mutually exclusive from each other: they overlap, with some geographic areas being covered by 30+ practices. This dataset should be viewed in combination with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset to identify where there are areas that are covered by multiple GP practices but at least one of those GP practices did not provide data. Results of the analysis in these areas should be interpreted with caution, particularly if the levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses appear to be significantly lower than the immediate surrounding areas.2. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).3. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.4. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of obesity/inactivity-related illnesses, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of these illnesses. TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:- Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.

SUMMARYThis analysis, designed and executed by Ribble Rivers Trust, identifies areas across England with the greatest levels of diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+). Please read the below information to gain a full understanding of what the data shows and how it should be interpreted.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe analysis was carried out using Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data, derived from NHS Digital, relating to diabetes mellitus in persons (aged 17+).This information was recorded at the GP practice level. However, GP catchment areas are not mutually exclusive: they overlap, with some areas covered by 30+ GP practices. Therefore, to increase the clarity and usability of the data, the GP-level statistics were converted into statistics based on Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) census boundaries.The percentage of each MSOA’s population (aged 17+) with diabetes mellitus was estimated. This was achieved by calculating a weighted average based on:The percentage of the MSOA area that was covered by each GP practice’s catchment areaOf the GPs that covered part of that MSOA: the percentage of registered patients that have that illness The estimated percentage of each MSOA’s population with diabetes mellitus was then combined with Office for National Statistics Mid-Year Population Estimates (2019) data for MSOAs, to estimate the number of people in each MSOA with depression, within the relevant age range.Each MSOA was assigned a relative score between 1 and 0 (1 = worst, 0 = best) based on:A) the PERCENTAGE of the population within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusB) the NUMBER of people within that MSOA who are estimated to have diabetes mellitusAn average of scores A & B was taken, and converted to a relative score between 1 and 0 (1= worst, 0 = best). The closer to 1 the score, the greater both the number and percentage of the population in the MSOA that are estimated to have diabetes mellitus, compared to other MSOAs. In other words, those are areas where it’s estimated a large number of people suffer from diabetes mellitus, and where those people make up a large percentage of the population, indicating there is a real issue with diabetes mellitus within the population and the investment of resources to address that issue could have the greatest benefits.LIMITATIONS1. GP data for the financial year 1st April 2018 – 31st March 2019 was used in preference to data for the financial year 1st April 2019 – 31st March 2020, as the onset of the COVID19 pandemic during the latter year could have affected the reporting of medical statistics by GPs. However, for 53 GPs (out of 7670) that did not submit data in 2018/19, data from 2019/20 was used instead. Note also that some GPs (997 out of 7670) did not submit data in either year. This dataset should be viewed in conjunction with the ‘Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliers’ dataset, to determine areas where data from 2019/20 was used, where one or more GPs did not submit data in either year, or where there were large discrepancies between the 2018/19 and 2019/20 data (differences in statistics that were > mean +/- 1 St.Dev.), which suggests erroneous data in one of those years (it was not feasible for this study to investigate this further), and thus where data should be interpreted with caution. Note also that there are some rural areas (with little or no population) that do not officially fall into any GP catchment area (although this will not affect the results of this analysis if there are no people living in those areas).2. Although all of the obesity/inactivity-related illnesses listed can be caused or exacerbated by inactivity and obesity, it was not possible to distinguish from the data the cause of the illnesses in patients: obesity and inactivity are highly unlikely to be the cause of all cases of each illness. By combining the data with data relating to levels of obesity and inactivity in adults and children (see the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset), we can identify where obesity/inactivity could be a contributing factor, and where interventions to reduce obesity and increase activity could be most beneficial for the health of the local population.3. It was not feasible to incorporate ultra-fine-scale geographic distribution of populations that are registered with each GP practice or who live within each MSOA. Populations might be concentrated in certain areas of a GP practice’s catchment area or MSOA and relatively sparse in other areas. Therefore, the dataset should be used to identify general areas where there are high levels of diabetes mellitus, rather than interpreting the boundaries between areas as ‘hard’ boundaries that mark definite divisions between areas with differing levels of diabetes mellitus.TO BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION WITH:This dataset should be viewed alongside the following datasets, which highlight areas of missing data and potential outliers in the data:Health and wellbeing statistics (GP-level, England): Missing data and potential outliersLevels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses (England): Missing dataDOWNLOADING THIS DATATo access this data on your desktop GIS, download the ‘Levels of obesity, inactivity and associated illnesses: Summary (England)’ dataset.DATA SOURCESThis dataset was produced using:Quality and Outcomes Framework data: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.GP Catchment Outlines. Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital. Data was cleaned by Ribble Rivers Trust before use.COPYRIGHT NOTICEThe reproduction of this data must be accompanied by the following statement:© Ribble Rivers Trust 2021. Analysis carried out using data that is: Copyright © 2020, Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is a non-departmental body created by statute, also known as NHS Digital.CaBA HEALTH & WELLBEING EVIDENCE BASEThis dataset forms part of the wider CaBA Health and Wellbeing Evidence Base.