Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "anticonserv".
2004 Aug 19
2
glmmPQL in R and S-PLUS 6 - differing results
...39.50200
m2 2 3 91.75447 96.50503 -42.87724 1 vs 2 6.75047 0.0094
Note that R and S-PLUS differ in the number of iterations. Also the
logLikelihoods differ considerably too. Pinheiro and Bates argue that
a likelihood-ratio test for fixed effects is not reliable
("anticonservative"), but I think that both packages should at least
give the same answer!! I checked lmeControl() in R and S-PLUS and the
settings for lme look the same on both platforms. Which output (if
any) should we believe? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Simon Blombe...
2010 Sep 19
1
boyplots nearly identical but still highly significant effect?
dear list,
i am running a within-design ANOVA with 4 factors (4,4,2 and 2 levels each).
the last one is a time factor comprising two different treatment timepoints.
i fit a mixed-effects model using lme and apply the anova function to the
outcome. according to this analysis, there are highly significant main
effect on the first and the time factor. i then checked the boxplots for the
two 4-level
2010 Mar 30
1
Multivariate hypergeometric distribution version of phyper()
Dear R Users,
I employed the phyper() function to estimate the likelihood that the
number of genes overlapping between 2 different lists of genes is due to
chance. This appears to work appropriately.
Now i want to try this with 3 lists of genes which phyper() does not
appear to support.
Some googling suggests i can utilize the Multivariate hypergeometric
distribution to achieve this. eg.:
2009 May 26
2
(OT) Does pearson correlation assume bivariate normality of the data?
Dear all,
The other day I was reading this post [1] that slightly surprised me:
"To reject the null of no correlation, an hypothsis test based on the
normal distribution. If normality is not the base assumption your
working from then p-values, significance tests and conf. intervals
dont mean much (the value of the coefficient is not reliable) " (BOB
SAMOHYL).
To me this implied that in