search for: unpen

Dear all, I need to calculate likelihood ratio test for ridge regression. In February I have reported a bug where coxph returns unpenalized log-likelihood for final beta estimates for ridge coxph regression. In high-dimensional settings ridge regression models usually fail for lower values of lambda. As the result of it, in such settings the ridge regressions have higher values of lambda (e.g. over 100) which means that the diffe...

It seems to me that R returns the unpenalized log-likelihood for the ratio likelihood test when ridge regression Cox proportional model is implemented. Is this as expected? In the example below, if I am not mistaken, fit$loglik[2] is unpenalized log-likelihood for the final estimates of coefficients. I would expect to get the penalized...

Hello R-user I want to compute a multiple regression but I would to include a check for collinearity of the variables. Therefore I would like to use a ridge regression. I tried lm.ridge() but I don't know yet how to get p-values (single Pr() and p of the whole model) out of this model. Can anybody tell me how to get a similar output like the summary(lm(...)) output? Or if there is

Hello I'm analyzing a dichotomous dependent variable (dv) with more than 100 measurements (within-subjects variable: hours24) per subject and more than 100 subjects. The high number of measurements allows me to model more complex temporal trends. I would like to compare different models using GLM, GLMM, GAM and GAMM, basically do demonstrate the added value of GAMs/GAMMs relative to

I'd like to compare tests based on the mixed model representation of additive models, testing among others y=f(x1)+f(x2) vs y=f(x1)+f(x2)+f(x1,x2) (testing for additivity) In mixed model representation, where X represents the unpenalized part of the spline functions and Z the "wiggly" parts, this would be: y=X%*%beta+ Z_1%*%b_1+ Z_2%*%b_2 vs y=X%*%beta+ Z_1%*%b_1+ Z_2%*%b_2 + Z_12 %*% b_12 where b are random effect vectors and the hypothesis to be tested is H_0: Var(b_12)=0 (<=> b_12_i == 0 for all i) the...

I have a question about how to compare a GLM with a GAM model using anova function. A GLM is performed for example: model1 <-glm(formula = exitus ~ age+gender+diabetes, family = "binomial", na.action = na.exclude) A second nested model could be: model2 <-glm(formula = exitus ~ age+gender, family = "binomial", na.action = na.exclude) To compare these two GLM

Dear useRs, I am using mgcv version 1.7-16. When I create a model with a few non-linear terms and a random intercept for (in my case) country using s(Country,bs="re"), the representative line in my model (i.e. approximate significance of smooth terms) for the random intercept reads: edf Ref.df F p-value s(Country) 36.127 58.551 0.644

hi, i'm using gam() function from package mgcv with default option (edf estimated by GCV). >G=gam(y ~ s(x0, k = 5) + s(x1) + s(x2, k = 3)) >SG=summary(G) Formula: y ~ +s(x0, k = 5) + s(x1) + s(x2, k = 3) Parametric coefficients: Estimate std. err. t ratio Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.462e+07 1.965e+05 176.2 < 2.22e-16 Approximate significance of smooth

Hi, I need further help with my GAMs. Most models I test are very obviously non-linear. Yet, to be on the safe side, I report the significance of the smooth (default output of mgcv's summary.gam) and confirm it deviates significantly from linearity. I do the latter by fitting a second model where the same predictor is entered without the s(), and then use anova.gam to compare the

Hello. Douglas Bates has explained in a previous posting to R why he does not output residual degrees of freedom, F values and probabilities in the mixed model (lmer) function: because the usual degrees of freedom (obs - fixed df -1) are not exact and are really only upper bounds. I am interpreting what he said but I am not a professional statistician, so I might be getting this wrong... Does

...: Re: [R] survival: ridge log-likelihood workaround Message-ID: <1291993662.26439.22.camel at punchbuggy> Content-Type: text/plain ------ begin inclusion --------- Dear all, I need to calculate likelihood ratio test for ridge regression. In February I have reported a bug where coxph returns unpenalized log-likelihood for final beta estimates for ridge coxph regression. In high-dimensional settings ridge regression models usually fail for lower values of lambda. As the result of it, in such settings the ridge regressions have higher values of lambda (e.g. over 100) which means that the diffe...