similar to: lmer family=binomal p-values

Dear R-users I have a dataset of 243 lines with replicate information for 20 different individuals (ID). I would like to randomly sample this dataset 100 times with a selection of unique IDs in each sample. First to create a random sample I have; cc<-read.table(blah.blah.blah) names(cc) [1] "CALL" "CONTEXT" "ORDER" "ID"

Dear R users, Simple question. Can anyone help with the code that would allow me to view only the variables who's correlation output is >0.8? This is the code I'm using to date >cor(data, method="spearman") Kind regards Krys -------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Save time by

Dr. Flom, I was searching the web for any examples of one-inflated negative binomial regression, and ran across your post. Fittingly, I am working on the analysis of data from the NIDA Cooperative Agreement where I had the pleasure of working with Sherry Deren and other folks at NDRI. NBR does a poor job of modeling number of sex partners. (I am using Stata.) Did you have any luck modeling a

Hello I am interested in Poisson or (ideally) Negative Binomial regression with an inflated number of 1 responses I have seen JK Lindsey's fmr function in the gnlm library, which fits zero inflated Poisson (ZIP) or zero inflated negative binomial regression, but the help file states that for ' Poisson or related distributions the mixture involves the zero category'. I had thought

OK, now i've to start to move the big part of my users from my old NT-like domains to my new AD domain. I've setup roaming profile in the new domain following the wiki (https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Roaming_Windows_User_Profiles, 'using windows ACL') and for new profiles works like a charm. But i've tried to move/copy old profile to the new domain, and seems work, with

R 0630 for windows > library(ctest) > binom.test(7,10,p=0.3, alternative="two.sided") returns a p-value of =< 2.2e-016 and a warning In Splus 3.4 > binom.test(7,10,p=0.3, alternative="two.sided") returns a p-value of 0.0106 I think it is the max(v[v<=(1+eps)*PVAL]) causing the problem... max() of an empty vector....... Mai Z

R. 1.1.0 The example below is self explanatory. ## 1 ## # works fine > binom.test((50*.64),50,.5,alt='g') ... Exact binomial test ... ## 2 ## # WHAT ! ? > binom.test((50*.65),50,.5,alt='g') Error in binom.test((50 * 0.65), 50, 0.5, alt = "g") : x must be an

running R 1.4.1 on MAC and 1.2.2 on Linux When I use run binom.test with small N the results are a little perplexing to me >binom.test(9,20,p=0.5) gives the below plus other stuff 95 percent confidence interval: 0.2305779 0.6847219 Now: >pbiom(9,20,0.6847219) [1] 0.02499998 # i.e., lower 2.5% of distribution >pbinom(9,20,0.2305779) [1] 0.9923132 >pbinom(8,20,0.2305779)

With this line: > binom.test(x=12, n=50, p=12/50, conf.level = 0.90) I get this output: > Exact binomial test > > data: 12 and 50 > number of successes = 12, number of trials = 50, p-value = 1 > alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.24 > 90 percent confidence interval: > 0.1447182 0.3596557 > sample estimates: > probability

I believe the binom.test procedure is producing one tailed p values rather than the two tailed value implied by the alternative hypothesis language. A textbook and SAS both show 2*9.94e-07 = 1.988e-06 as the two tailed value. As does the R summation syntax from R below. It looks to me like the alternative hypothesis language should be revised to something like " ... greater than or equal

Full_Name: Petr Savicky Version: 2.4.0 OS: Fedora Core release 2 Submission from: (NULL) (62.24.91.47) the error is > binom.test(0.56*10000,10000) Error in binom.test(0.56 * 10000, 10000) : 'x' must be nonnegative and integer while > binom.test(5600,10000) yields correct result. The same error occurrs for > binom.test(0.57*10000,10000)

Hi there, as part of a 2 x 2 contingency table analysis I would like to estimate conditional probabilities (success rates) in a Bernoulli experiment. In particular I want to test a null hypothesis p <= p0 versus the alternative hypothesis p > p0. As far as I understand the subject, there are UMPU tests for these types of hypotheses. Now I know about R's "binom.test" but the

No, since I'd like to test null: p <= p0 alternative: p > p0. and my understanding is that binom.test tests null: p = p0 (can only be a "simple" null hypothesis according to help(binom.test)) alternative: p > p0 (or p < p0 or p != p0). Thanks, Mirko. > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Douglas Bates [mailto:bates at stat.wisc.edu] >

Hello all, I am trying to understand the different results I am getting from the following 3 commands: chisq.test(c(62,50), p = c(0.512,1-0.512), correct = F) # p-value = 0.3788 binom.test(x=62,n=112, p= 0.512) # p-value = 0.3961 2*(1-pbinom(62,112, .512)) # p-value = 0.329 Well, the binom.test was supposed to be "exact" and give the same results as the pbinom, while the chisq.test

Hello everybody. Does anyone else find the last test in the following sequence odd? Can anyone else reproduce it or is it just me? > binom.test(100,200,0.13)$p.value [1] 2.357325e-36 > binom.test(100,200,0.013)$p.value [1] 6.146546e-131 > binom.test(100,200,0.0013)$p.value [1] 1.973702e-230 > binom.test(100,200,0.00013)$p.value [1] 0.9743334 (R 1.5.1, Linux RedHat 7.1) --

HI, Dear R community, How to extract the variables actually used in tree construction? I want to extract these variables and combine other variable as my features in next step model building. > printcp(fit.dimer) Classification tree: rpart(formula = outcome ~ ., data = p_df, method = "class") Variables actually used in tree construction: [1] CT DP DY FC NE NW QT SK TA WC WD WG WW

R-experts: A quick question, please. >From a lab exp, I got 12 positives out of 50. To get 90% CI for this , I think binom.test might be the one to be used. Is there a better way or function to calculate this? > binom.test(x=12, n=50, p=12/50, conf.level = 0.90) Exact binomial test data: 12 and 50 number of successes = 12, number of trials = 50, p-value = 1 alternative

Dear R crew: I am sorry this question has been posted before, but I can't seem to solve this problem yet. I have a simple dataset consisting of two variables: cestode intensity and chick size (defined as CAPI). Intensity is a count and clearly overdispersed, with way too many zeroes. I'm interested in looking at the association between these two variables, i.e. how well does chick

Hi all, I am wondering whether there is a small bug in the binom.test function of the ctest library (I'm using R 1.6.0 on windows 2000, but Splus 2000 seems to have the same behaviour). Or perhaps I've misunderstood something. the command binom.test(11,100,p=0.1) and binom.test(9,100,p=0.1) give different p-values (see below). As 9 and 11 are equidistant from 10, the mean of the

Hi Folks, The recent correspondence about "strange fisher.test result", and especially Peter Dalgaard's reply on Tue 03 April 2007 (which I want to investigate further) led me to take a close look at the code for binom.test(). I now have a query! The code for the two-sided case computes the p-value as follows: if (p == 0) (x == 0) else if (p == 1) (x == n)