similar to: How to summarise several models in a single table

Dear R users, i'm using a custom function to fit ancova models to a dataset. The data are divided into 12 groups, with one dependent variable and one covariate. When plotting the data, i'd like to add separate regression lines for each group (so, 12 lines, each with their respective individual slopes). My 'model1' uses the group*covariate interaction term, and so the coefficients

Dear R users, Thanks in advance. I am Deb, Statistician at NSW Department of Commerce, Sydney. I am using R 2.9.1 on Windows XP. This has reference to the package “MCMCpack”. My objective is to select a better model using various alternatives. I have provided here an example code from MCMCpack.pdf. The matrix of Bayes Factors is: model1 model2 model3 model1 1.000 14.08

Hi, I'm trying to compare models, one of which has all parameters fixed using offsets. The log-likelihoods seem reasonble in all cases except the model in which there are no free parameters (model3 in the toy example below). Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jarrod x<-rnorm(100) y<-rnorm(100, 1+x) model1<-lm(y~x) logLik(model1) sum(dnorm(y, predict(model1),

I am using anova.lm to compare 3 linear models. Model 1 has 1 variable, model 2 has 2 variables and model 3 has 3 variables. All models are fitted to the same data set. anova.lm(model1,model2) gives me: Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F) 1 135 245.38 2 134 184.36 1 61.022 44.354 6.467e-10 *** anova.lm(model1,model2,model3) gives

Hello, I am using the following model model1=lmer(PairFrequency~MatingPair+(1|DrugPair)+(1|DrugPair:MatingPair), data=MateChoice, REML=F) 1. After reading around through the R help, I have learned that the above code is the right way to analyze a mixed model with the MatingPair as the fixed effect, DrugPair as the random effect and the interaction between these two as the random effect as well.

Dear R users, I am using lme and nlme to account for spatially correlated errors as random effects. My basic question is about being able to correct F, p, R2 and parameters of models that do not take into account the nature of such errors using gls, glm or nlm and replace them for new F, p, R2 and parameters using lme and nlme as random effects. I am studying distribution patterns of 50 tree

Hi (R 2.13.1, OSX 10.6.8) I am trying to use predict.rma with continuous and categorical variables. The argument newmods in predict.rma seems to handle coviariates, but appears to falter on factors. While I realise that the coefficients for factors provide the answers, the goal is to eventually use predict.rma with ANCOVA type model with an interaction. Here is a self contained example

If I have a model line = lm(y~x1) and I want to use a for loop to change the number of explanatory variables, how would I do this? So for example I want to store the model objects in a list. model1 = lm(y~x1) model2 = lm(y~x1+x2) model3 = lm(y~x1+x2+x3) model4 = lm(y~x1+x2+x3+x4) model5 = lm(y~x1+x2+x3+x4+x5)... model10. model_function = function(x){ for(i in 1:x) { } If x =1, then the list

Dear R users, Assume I have three models with the following AIC values: model AIC df model1 -10 2 model2 -12 5 model3 -11 2 Obviously, model2 would be preferred, but it "wastes" 5 df compared to the other models. Would it be allowed to select model3 instead, simply because it uses up less df and the delta-AIC between model2 and model3 is just 1? Many thanks for any

Hi, I am doing predictive modelling of Multivariate Time series Data of a Motor in R using various models such as Arima, H2O.Randomforest, glmnet, lm and few other models. I created a function to select a model of our choice and do prediction. Model1 <- function(){ .. return() } Model2 <- function(){ ... return() } Model3 <- function(){ ... return() } main <-

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

Hi guys, Got a few days left and I need to model a random effect of species on the body mass (logM) and temperature (K) slopes. This is what i've done so far that works: model1<-lme(logSSP~logM + K,random=~1|species,data=data1) model2<-lme(logSSP~logM + K,random=~K|species,data=data1) model3<-lme(logSSP~logM + K,random=~logM|species,data=data1) The one I now want is:

Hi, I have a question about the parameter C (cost) in svm function in e1071. I thought larger C is prone to overfitting than smaller C, and hence leads to more support vectors. However, using the Wisconsin breast cancer example on the link: http://planatscher.net/svmtut/svmtut.html I found that the largest cost have fewest support vectors, which is contrary to what I think. please see the scripts

Hello, Any advice or pointers for implementing Sobel's test for mediation in 2-level model setting? For fitting the hierarchical models, I am using "lme4" but could also revert to "nlme" since it is a relatively simple varying intercept model and they yield identical estimates. I apologize for this is an R question with an embedded statistical question. I noticed that a

Dear R-gurus, I have an interpretation problem regarding lme models. I am currently working on dog locomotion, particularly on some variation factors. I try to figure out which limb out of 2 generated more dispersed data. I record a value called Peak, around 20 times for each limb with a record. I repeat the records during a single day, and on several days. I tried to build two models, one

Dear R-Community, I am relatively new with R, so sorry for things which for you might be obvious... I am trying to automatically update lmer formulae. the variables of the model are: depM= my dependent measure Sb2= a random factor OS = a predictor VR= another predictor So, I am building the first model with random intercept only: model = lmer(depM ~ (1 |Sb2)) then I update the formula

Dear all, During my pre-R era I tried (yes, tried) to understand mixed models by working through the 'rat example' in Sokal and Rohlfs Biometry (2000) 3ed p 288-292. The same example was later used by Crawley (2002) in his Statistical Computing p 363-373 and I have seen the same data being used elsewhere in the litterature. Because this example is so thoroughly described, I thought

Dear R users, Could somebody please help me to find a way of comparing nonlinear, non-nested models in R, where the number of parameters is not necessarily different? Here is a sample (growth rates, y, as a function of internal substrate concentration, x): x <- c(0.52, 1.21, 1.45, 1.64, 1.89, 2.14, 2.47, 3.20, 4.47, 5.31, 6.48) y <- c(0.00, 0.35, 0.41, 0.49, 0.58, 0.61, 0.71, 0.83, 0.98,

Dear R users, I've notice that there are two ways to conduct a binomial GLM with binomial counts using R. The first way is outlined by Michael Crawley in his "Statistical Computing book" (p 520-521): >dose=c(1,3,10,30,100) >dead = c(2,10,40,96,98) >batch=c(100,90,98,100,100) >response = cbind(dead,batch-dead) >model1=glm(y~log(dose),binomial)

Is there any way to put an argument into an object name. For example, say I have 5 objects, model1, model2, model3, model4 and model5. I would like to make a vector of the r.squares from each model by code such as this: rsq <- summary(model1)$r.squared for(i in 2:5){ rsq <- c(rsq, summary(model%i%)$r.squared) } So I assign the first value to rsq then cycle through models 2 through