search for: n1i

...metafor package (version 1.6-0) in R (2.15.1, 64-bit Windows 7) and noticed that I was getting slightly different values when I manually calculated the standardized mean difference versus what escalc was giving me. Here''s a very simple example: escalc(measure="SMD", m1i=5,m2i=10,n1i=5,n2i=5,sd1i=1,sd2i=2,vtype="LS") The result is: yi vi 1 -2.854599 0.8074367 However, if I calculate this manually using the pooled standard deviation formula given in Cooper et al (2009)*, I get an SMD of -2.85625 and a variance of 0.870205. The formula given in Co...

...r the random effect, the numbers are considerably different. Unfortunately, I could not find where I made it wrong. I would be grateful if someone would have a look at my calculations. Here are the meta-analysis commands: ### USING METAFOR library(metafor) ( dat<-escalc(m1i=m1i, sd1i=sd1i, n1i=n1i, m2i=m2i, sd2i=sd2i, n2i=n2i, measure="SMD", data=metaData, append=T) ) # COMPUTE EFFECT SIZE ( res<-rma.uni(yi,vi,data=dat,method="HE", level=95) ) ### RANDOM EFFECT ( res<-rma.uni(yi,vi,data=dat,method="FE", level=95) ) ### FIXED EFFECT ### USING META (...

...ned n0, unsigned n1, unsigned o0, unsigned o1, unsigned s0, unsigned s1, float A[n0][n1]) { for (unsigned i = 0; i < s0; i++) for (unsigned j = 0; j < s1; j++) S: A[i + o0][j + o1] = 1; } ``` We first reduce this index expression to a sum of products: ``` (i + o0) * n1 + (j + o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 ix(i, j, n0, n1, o0, o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 ``` `ix` is the index expression which `LLVM` will see, since it is fully flattened, in comparison with the multi-dimensional index expression `index:[i + o0][j + o1] | sizes:[][n1]`. We will now show _why_ this multi-dimensional inde...

...t; float A[n0][n1]) { >> for (unsigned i = 0; i < s0; i++) >> for (unsigned j = 0; j < s1; j++) >> S: A[i + o0][j + o1] = 1; >> } >> ``` >> We first reduce this index expression to a sum of products: >> >> ``` >> (i + o0) * n1 + (j + o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 >> ix(i, j, n0, n1, o0, o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 >> ``` >> >> `ix` is the index expression which `LLVM` will see, since it is fully >> flattened, in comparison with the multi-dimensional index expression >> `index:[i + o0][j + o1] | sizes:[][n1]`...

...float A[n0][n1]) { > for (unsigned i = 0; i < s0; i++) > for (unsigned j = 0; j < s1; j++) > S: A[i + o0][j + o1] = 1; > } > ``` > We first reduce this index expression to a sum of products: > > ``` > (i + o0) * n1 + (j + o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 > ix(i, j, n0, n1, o0, o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 > ``` > > `ix` is the index expression which `LLVM` will see, since it is fully > flattened, in comparison with the multi-dimensional index expression > `index:[i + o0][j + o1] | sizes:[][n1]`. &g...

...or (unsigned i = 0; i < s0; i++) >>> for (unsigned j = 0; j < s1; j++) >>> S: A[i + o0][j + o1] = 1; >>> } >>> ``` >>> We first reduce this index expression to a sum of products: >>> >>> ``` >>> (i + o0) * n1 + (j + o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 >>> ix(i, j, n0, n1, o0, o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 >>> ``` >>> >>> `ix` is the index expression which `LLVM` will see, since it is fully >>> flattened, in comparison with the multi-dimensional index expression >>> `index:[i + o0]...

...j < s1; j++) > > > S: A[i + o0][j + o1] = 1; > > > } > > > ``` > > > We first reduce this index expression to a sum of products: > > > > > > ``` > > > (i + o0) * n1 + (j + o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 > > > ix(i, j, n0, n1, o0, o1) = n1i + n1o0 + j + o1 > > > ``` > > > > > > `ix` is the index expression which `LLVM` will see, since it is fully > > > flattened, in comparison with the multi-dimensional index expression &g...

Hi, I have been looking for an R package which allowed to do meta-analysis (both pairwise and network/mixed-treatment) at arm-level rather than at trial-level, the latter being the common way in which meta-analysis is done. By arm-level meta-analysis I mean one that accounts for data provided at the level of the individual arms of each trial and that does not simply derive the difference between

Section I. Overview Hello, About a half year ago there was some rumour on bugtraq concerning a buffer overflow in Linux dynamic linkers, ld.so and ld-linux.so. You can take a look at the beginning of the thread at http://www.geek-girl.com/bugtraq/1997_3/0089.html to refresh old memories; I''ll capitalize anyway. Briefly, there exists a buffer overrun in ld-linux.so versions 1.7.14,

...4Q!J*dk7jJbv5 zr0f8~^hn;F5iilnc=+^US<#HVo&C|b*8`|xG?_lXXT(VB2EBVRon^S9>VV()^&Zv+ zfS413+*JFc`Z0N>`k!U^@Nci**01Y2!DAws1+QM$EuQn6 at 9ICZyThyEX@p31F-w3b zSp;{Cmu1kte3$6V?kb8$(-YM27+?<CTY}JD0InHUQ at -GR)qtg#qw7n at So}7r5Wr;? zp>5(awY>wF{bCO75F^>7Q7qt<1+d;kD-Usmb>}{1N1I46jz*-OBg1(+Ax3knR>9w1 zvQT!qdc(IOh1!73Q9>WMid{VDXe&x-yCAs~5raD!Dk?h1JQV$GGeSC&OYo%4QUv*= z6^5=fvxEB at smAVqyffZ8O{Cxd`{uAD#^IxXtc<T1<Cu5J;gu%FQWPfKb<k7ecqNWL zPexA~KzT}l15UHZbG%jR9)Npwf<D;eycDM!k>y_;-e16kK?KHp7|}V;>=9Xm<mf|f zne)Y!WC%7MFdZX|k-JfsBr{HVUI>^b$m9H...

Hello list. I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without modifications. How did I try it? Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock ) Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee prep-out.log The build failed at the end: Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL Checking