search for: 0.1381

Hello- Such a strange problem, can't figure it out at all. Using binomial glm models, and the step() function, so the call looks like this: sectionmodel = glm(formula = Target3 ~ S1Q12_NUM.1 + S1Q9_NUM.1 + S1Q5_NUM.1 + S1Q7_NUM.1 + S1Q8_NUM.1 + S1Q6_NUM.1 + S1Q10_NUM.1 + S1Q12_BURG.1 + S1Q12_CD.1 + S1Q4.1 + S1Q12_OTHVIOL.1 + S1Q8.1 + S1Q12_GBH.1 + S1Q11.1 + S1Q7.1 + S1Q12_THEFT.1

I am trying to use the survfit() function with the newdata argument to produce predicted survivor curves for a particular covariate profile. The main purpose of the plot will be to visualise the effect of snp1, coded 0 and 1. In my Cox model I have stratified by one variable, edu, and so I know I will automatically get a separate curve for each strata. My problem is how to deal with the

Hello List: Please find uploaded to CRAN a new package, PwrGSD The package is intended for the design and analysis of group sequential trials There are two main functions, (1) GrpSeqBnds: computes group sequential stopping boundaries for interim analysis of a sequential trial based upon a normally distributed test statistic. This can be done via the Lan-Demets procedure with

Hello List: Please find uploaded to CRAN a new package, PwrGSD The package is intended for the design and analysis of group sequential trials There are two main functions, (1) GrpSeqBnds: computes group sequential stopping boundaries for interim analysis of a sequential trial based upon a normally distributed test statistic. This can be done via the Lan-Demets procedure with

Hello folks, I have a big project to work on and the dataset is classified so I am just going to use my own example so everyone can understand what I am targeting. Let's take Target as an example: We consider three brands of tape: Target brand, 3M and Avery. The original data frame has 4 columns: Year of Record, Product_Name(which contains three brands of tape), Sales, and Region. I want to

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

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