similar to: Extract summary stats to table

Dear List, I am familier with binary models, however i am now trying to get predictions from a ordinal model and have a question. I have a data set made up of 12 categorical predictors, the response variable is classed as 1,2,3,4,5,6, this relates to threat level of the species ( on the IUCN rating). Previously i have combined levels 1 and 2 to form = non threatened and then combined 3-6 to

dear:teacher i have a problem which about the polr()(package "MASS"), if the response must have 3 or more levels? and how to fit the polr() to 2 levels? thank you. turly yours [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear, When fitting the following model knots <- 5 lrm.NDWI <- lrm(m.arson ~ rcs(NDWI,knots) I obtain the following result: Logistic Regression Model lrm(formula = m.arson ~ rcs(NDWI, knots)) Frequencies of Responses 0 1 666 35 Obs Max Deriv Model L.R. d.f. P C Dxy Gamma Tau-a R2 Brier 701 5e-07 34.49

Dear all, I am using the publically available GustoW dataset. The exact version I am using is available here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4oZ2TQA0PAoUm85UzBFNjZ0Ulk I would like to produce a nomogram for 5 covariates - AGE, HYP, KILLIP, HRT and ANT. I have successfully fitted a logistic regression model using the "glm" function as shown below. library(rms) gusto <-

Hi, I've come across a strange error when using the lrm.fit function and the subsequent predict function. The model is created very quickly and can be verified by printing it on the console. Everything looks good. (In fact, the performance measures are rather nice.) Then, I want to use the model to predict some values. I get the following error: "fit was not created by a Design

Hi List, I don't understand why 'lrm' doesn't recognize the '~.' formula. I'm pretty sure it was working before. Please see below: I'm using R2.3.0, WinXP, Design 2.0-12 thanks, ...Tao > dat <- data.frame(y=factor(rep(1:2,each=50)), x1=rnorm(100), x2=rnorm(100), x3=rnorm(100)) > lrm(y~., data=dat, x=T, y=T) Error in terms.formula(formula, specials =

lrm does some binning to make the calculations faster. The exact calculation is obtained by running f <- lrm(...) rcorr.cens(predict(f), DA), which results in: C Index Dxy S.D. n missing 0.96814404 0.93628809 0.03808336 32.00000000 0.00000000 uncensored Relevant Pairs Concordant Uncertain 32.00000000

Dear All, I have just estimated this model: ----------------------------------------------------------- Logistic Regression Model lrm(formula = Y ~ X16, x = T, y = T) Model Likelihood Discrimination Rank Discrim. Ratio Test Indexes Indexes Obs 82 LR chi2 5.58 R2 0.088 C 0.607 0

Hi, I am trying to run a simple logistic regression using lrm() to calculate a odds ratio. I found a confusing output when I use summary() on the fit object which gave some OR that is totally different from simply taking exp(coefficient), see below: > dat<-read.table("dat.txt",sep='\t',header=T,row.names=NULL) > d<-datadist(dat) > options(datadist='d')

Dear Sir or Madam? I am a doctor of urology,and I am engaged in developing a nomogram of bladder cancer. May I ask for your help on below issue? I set up a dataset which include 317 cases. I got the Binary Logistic Regression model by SPSS.And then I try to reconstruct the model ?lrm(RECU~Complication+T.Num+T.Grade+Year+TS)? by R-Project,and try to internal validate the model through

Greetings: I'm running R-1.9.1 on Fedora Core 2 Linux. I tested a proportional odds logistic regression with MASS's polr and Design's lrm. Parameter estimates between the 2 are consistent, but the standard errors are quite different, and the conclusions from the t and Wald tests are dramatically different. I cranked the "abstol" argument up quite a bit in the polr

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Bonnett, Laura <L.J.Bonnett at liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am using the publically available GustoW dataset. The exact version I am using is available here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4oZ2TQA0PAoUm85UzBFNjZ0Ulk > > I would like to produce a nomogram for 5 covariates - AGE, HYP, KILLIP, HRT and ANT. I have

I've noticed that glm and lrm give extremely different results if you attempt to fit a saturated model to a dataset with zero cells. Consider, for instance the data from, Agresti's Death Penalty example [0]. The crosstab table is: , , PENALTY = NO VIC DEF BLACK WHITE BLACK 97 52 WHITE 9 132 , , PENALTY = YES VIC DEF BLACK WHITE BLACK 6 11

Hi all R users I did a logistic regression with my binary variable Y (0/1) and 2 explanatory variables. Now I try to draw my nomogram with predictive value. I visited the help of R but I have problem to understand well the example. When I use glm fonction, I have a problem, thus I use lrm. My code is: modele<-lrm(Y~L+P,data=donnee) fun<- function(x) plogis(x-modele$coef[1]+modele$coef[2])

Fixed 'maxiter' in the help file. Thanks. Please give the original source of that dataset. That dataset is a tiny sample of GUSTO-I and not large enough to fit this model very reliably. A nomogram using the full dataset (not publicly available to my knowledge) is already available in http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tmp/bbr.pdf Use lrm, not lrm.fit for this. Adding maxit=20 will

Dear list, I'm currently trying to use the rms package to get predicted ordinal responses from a conditional ratio model. As you will see below, my model seems to fit well to the data, however, I'm having trouble getting predicted mean (or fitted) ordinal response values using the predict function. I have a feeling I'm missing something simple, however I haven't been able to

I'm trying to run an ordered logistic regression model. I've run the following code, but the output does not provide the p-values. Is there some command to include the p-values in the output. reg2 <- polr(trade1 ~ age2 + education2 + personal2 + economy2 + partisan2 + employment2 + union2 + home2 + market2 + race2 + income2) summary(reg2) Re-fitting to get Hessian# Call:

Hi R sages, Here is my latest problem. Consider the following toy example: x <- read.table(textConnection("y1 y2 y3 x1 x2 indv.1 bagels donuts bagels 4 6 indv.2 donuts donuts donuts 5 1 indv.3 donuts donuts donuts 1 10 indv.4 donuts donuts donuts 10 9 indv.5 bagels donuts bagels 0 2 indv.6 bagels donuts bagels 2 9 indv.7 bagels donuts bagels 8 5 indv.8 bagels donuts bagels 4 1 indv.9

I'm trying to fit a generalized mixed effects model to a data set where each subject has paired categorical responses y (so I'm trying to use a binomial logit link). There are about 183 observations and one explanatory factor x. I'm trying to fit something like: (lmer(y~x+(1|subject))) I also tried fitting the same type of model using glmmPQL from MASS. In both cases, I get a

This is a follow up to the message I posted 3 days ago about how to estimate mixed ordinal logit models. I hope you don't mind that I am just pasting in the code and comments from an R file for your feedback. Actual estimates are at the end of the post. ### Subject: mixed ordinal logit via "augmented" data setup. ### I've been interested in estimating an ordinal logit model