search for: remls

Hello everyone, I hope this is a fair enough question, but I don’t have access to a copy of Bates and Pinheiro. It is probably quite obvious but the answer might be of general interest. If I fit a fixed effect with an added quadratic term and then do it as an orthogonal polynomial using maximum likelihood I get the expected result- they have the same logLik.

Hi, I've been using gamm4 to build GAMMs for exploring environmental influences on genetic ancestry. Things have gone well and I have 2 very straightforward questions: 1. I've used method=REML. Am I correct that this is an alternative method for estimating the smooth functions in GAMMs rather than GCV that is often used for GAMs? I've read up on REML and it makes sense, but I'm

Hello. I am trying to determine whether I should be using ML or REML methods to estimate a linear mixed model. In the book by Pinheiro & Bates (Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS, page 76) they state that one difference between REML and ML is that « LME models with different fixed-effects structures fit using REML cannot be compared on the basis of their restricted likelihoods. In

Hi, I know that is not possible make a stepwise procedure using REML in R, I can use ML for this. For nested design it may be very dangerous due the difference in variance structure, mainly in a splitplot design. ML make significative variables that REML dont make. I read an article that is made a stepwise procedure using GENSTAT. from article: "Terms were dropped from a model in a

Hi, I am trying to use glmmPQL package for Generalized linear mixed models. This package works by repeated calls to lme. lme uses by default REML method for estimation. Then, does glmmmPQL use REML too? In contrast, how can I change it? I have tried it, writing : method="REML", but the program says: invalid method REML. If somebody can answer me....thanks, Sonja

Dear All, I have a question concerning the computation of the value of the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) function evaluated at a given set of parameter estimates from the Maximum likelihood (ML) value. Following the book of Fitzmaurice, Laird and Ware (2004) "Applied Longitudinal Analysis" pp101, the REML likelihood can be computed by multiplying the ML likleihood by the square

Trying to use contrast to look at differences within an lme lme.fnl.REML <- lme(Max ~ S + Tr + Yr + Tr:Yr, random = ~1 |TID, method = "REML") I have three levels of Tr I'm trying to contrast among different years (R, T97, T98), years = 1997-1999, so I'm interested in contrasts of the interaction term. > anova(lme.fnl.REML) numDF denDF F-value

Hi R users I try to use the lme but I can?t!!!!! My script is (some words in french, sorry!!): rm(list=ls(all=TRUE)) #Efface tous les objets en m?moire pour ?viter des erreurs library(MASS) #Chargement des Librairies library(car) library(Hmisc) library(tkWidgets) library(svDialogs) library(multtest) library(nlme) #Rep <- "C:/Documents and Settings/U3M/Bureau/steph/Scripts

Dear list members, I'm interested in showing that within-group statistical dependence is negligible, so I can use ordinary linear models without including random effects. However, I can find no mention of testing a model with vs. without random effects in either Venable & Ripley (2002) or Pinheiro and Bates (2000). Our in-house statisticians are not familiar with this, either,

Hi, In glmmPQL in the MASS library, the function uses repeated calls to the function lme(), using ML. Does anyone know how you can change this to REML? I know that in lme(), the default is actually set to REML and you can also specify this as 'method=REML' or 'method'ML' but this isn't applicable to glmmPQL(). I'd appreciate any help or advice! Thanks, Emma

hi I'm puzzled as to the relation between the REML score computed by gam and the formula (4) on p.4 here: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/22707/1/Wood_JRSSB_2011_73_1_3.pdf I'm ok with this for poisson, or for quasipoisson when phi=1. However, when phi differs from 1, I'm stuck. #simulate some data library(mgcv) set.seed(1) x1<-runif(500) x2<-rnorm(500)

Hi everyone, I have been using REML to derive intercepts and coeficients for each individual in a growth study. So the code is m2 <- lmer(change.wt ~ newwt+(newwt|id), data = grow) Calling coef(model.lmer) gives a matrix with this information which is what I want. However, as a test I looked at each individual on its own and used a simple linear regression to obtain the same information, then

Can you provide the summary(m2) results? > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Pickett [mailto:S.Pickett at exeter.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:14 AM > To: Doran, Harold > Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [SPAM] - RE: [R] REML with random slopes and random > intercepts giving strange results - Bayesian Filter detected spam > > Hi again,

Dear all, I am planning to use nlme library for analysis of experiments in semiconductor industry. Currently I am using "lm" but plan to move to "lme" to handle within wafer / wafer-to-wafer and lot-to-lot variation correctly. So far everything is working well, but I have a fundamentel question: NLME offers "maximum likelihood" and "restricted maximum

Hi, All,   My data collection is from 4 regions (a, b, c, d). Within each region, it has 2 or 3 units. Within each unit, it has measurement from about 25 sample site. I was trying to use lme function to discribe relationship between y and a few covariates. Both y and covariates were measured at the sample site level. My question is when I use exactlly the same model but choose different estimation

Hi Greg, For quasi families I've used extended quasi-likelihood (see Mccullagh and Nelder, Generalized Linear Models 2nd ed, section 9.6) in place of the likelihood/quasi-likelihood in the expression for the (RE)ML score. I hadn't realised that this was possible before the paper was published. best, Simon ps. sorry for slow reply, the original message slipped through my filter for

Hello, I’m trying to perform a REML analysis using the lmer() function (lme4 package). Well, it seems to work well, except that I’m not getting any p-value (see example below). Can someone tell me what I did wrong? Thanks for your help, Amélie > library(gdata) > dive <- read.xls("C:/Documents and Settings/Amelie/My Documents/Postdoc/CE 2005-2006/divebydive.xls",

Sorry for the off-topic (non-R) post. Has anyone seen/tried this (from this week's NA-digest)? Andy ------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel Malard <JM.Malard at pnl.gov> Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:31:15 -0700 Subject: ACRE, Parallel Covariance Component Estimation Code A couple of people have asked recently for a copy of the parallel (restricted/residual)

Dear All, As you know, glmmADMB package use ML method for estimation. Is it possible to use REML estimation method for zero-inflated Poisson distribution? For ML method, poi_ML <- glmm.admb(los ~ psihigh + trt.mod + trt.high + psihigh*trt.mod + psihigh*trt.high + 1, random = ~1, group="site", family="poisson", data=edcap) summary(poi_ML) How can I control to use REML

Hi,I have tumor growth curve data for a bunch of different mice in various groups. I want to compare the growth curves of the different groups to see if timing of drug delivery changed tumor growth.I am trying to run a mixed models with repeated measures over time with each mouse as a random effect with linear and quadratic terms for time.This took me a long time to figure out and I just wanted to