search for: anticonservative

...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 Blomberg....

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

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.:

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