search for: 0.0266

I am having trouble understanding results I'm getting back from coxph doing a recurrent event analysis. I've included the model below and the summary. In some cases, with minor variations, the Robust variance and Wald tests are significant, but the individual covariates may or may not be significant. My main question is: If Wald and robust tests both take into account the

Hello, I'm attempting to create a data frame with correlations between every pair of variables in a data frame, so that I can then sort by the value of the correlation coefficient and see which pairs of variables are most strongly correlated. The sm2vec function in the corpcor library works very nicely as shown here: library(Hmisc) library(corpcor) # Create example data x1 = runif(50) x2 =

Hi, I am new to R. My question is: how to get the 'hazard ratio' using the 'coxph' function in 'survival' package? thanks, karena -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/About-hazard-ratio-urgent-tp3595527p3595527.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? > > I tried gcc.c from > http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the > difference is a bit more noticeable: > > -O0 -mno-relax-all > > real 0m13.182s > user 0m12.690s > sys 0m0.450s > > -O0 > > gcc.o is

>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? I tried gcc.c from http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the difference is a bit more noticeable: -O0 -mno-relax-all real 0m13.182s user 0m12.690s sys 0m0.450s -O0 gcc.o is 10932968 bytes. real 0m12.969s user 0m12.520s sys 0m0.410s gcc.o is 11410552 bytes IMHO it would still be reasonable to switch to

I've searched the Web with Google and do not find what might cause this particular error from an invocation of cenboxplot: cenboxplot(cu.t$quant, cu.t$ceneq1, cu.t$era, range=1.5, main='Total Recoverable Copper', ylab='Concentration (mg/L)', xlab='Time Period') Error in if (n > 0) (1L:n - a)/(n + 1 - 2 * a) else numeric() : argument is of length zero I do

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download