similar to: predict witht he eha package

I am unsure what is being returned, and what is supposed to be returned, when using 'predict' with "type='expected'" for an aftreg survival model. The code below first generates a weibull model, then uses predict to create a vector of the linear predictors, then attempts to create the 'expected' vector, which is empty. The final two steps in the code generate a

A few days ago I uploaded to CRAN a new package called 'eha', which stands for 'Event History Analysis'. Its main focus is on proportional hazards modeling in survival analysis, and in that respect eha can be regarded as a complement and an extension to the 'survival' package. In fact eha requires survival. Eha contains three functions for proportional hazards

A few days ago I uploaded to CRAN a new package called 'eha', which stands for 'Event History Analysis'. Its main focus is on proportional hazards modeling in survival analysis, and in that respect eha can be regarded as a complement and an extension to the 'survival' package. In fact eha requires survival. Eha contains three functions for proportional hazards

G?ran, thanks for the update, I'm just about to install it! Just wanted to drop you a short line about performance (as you once requested): aftreg takes ages on my windows machine to calculate a small set of 7 observations which are not even grouped together by "id". To be a bit more precise, it takes 2:40 mins on my Intel T9300 Core2 Duo @ 2.5 GHz. Bigger samples with about 700

Dear List, After including cluster() option the coxreg (from eha package) produces results slightly different than that of coxph (from survival) in the following time-dependent treatment effect calculation (example is used just to make the point). Will appreciate any explaination / comment. cheers, Ehsan ############################ require(survival) require(eha) data(heart) # create weights

Dear R-users, I need to use the aftreg function in package 'eha' to estimate failure times for left truncated survival data. Apparently, survreg still cannot fit such models. Both functions should be fitting the accelerated failure time (Weibull) model. However, as G?ran Brostr?m points out in the help file for aftreg, the parameterisation is different giving rise to different

Hello, I am apparently confused about the use of an id parameter for an event history/survival model, and why the EHA documentation for aftreg does not specify one. All assistance and insights are appreciated. Attempting to specifiy an id variable with the documentation example generates an "overlapping intervals" error, so I sorted the original mort dataframe and set subsequent entry

In one particular situation predict.coxph gives an error message. Namely: stratified data, predict='expected', new data, se=TRUE. I think I found the error but I'll leave that to you to decide. Thanks, Chris ######## CODE library(survival) set.seed(20121221) nn <- 10 # sample size in each group lambda0 <- 0.1 # event rate in group 0 lambda1 <- 0.2 # event rate in group 1

Hi, I would like to fit parametric survival models to time-to-event data that are left truncated. I have checked the help page for survreg and looked in the R-help archive, and it appears that the R function survreg from the survival library (version 2.16) should allow me to take account of left truncation. However, when I try the command

Thanks for the reproducable example. I can confirm that it fails on my machine using survival 2-37.5, the next soon-to-be-released version, The issue is with NextMethod, and my assumption that the called routine inherited everything from the parent, including the environment chain. A simple test this AM showed me that the assumption is false. It might have been true for Splus. Working this

Dear useRs, I am currently fitting an advanced failure time model using G?ran Brostr?m's excellent "eha" library with the "aftreg" command. My question: How do I interpret the "Overall p-value", that is reported at the very bottom of the output? I already figured out it must be a chi-square test, but I am wondering what a p-value < 0.01 means: Does it mean

A new version of 'eha' (0.92-1) is now on CRAN. From the ChangeLog: 0.92-1 (January 7, 2004) * mlreg: Geometric distribution (i.e., constant baseline discrete hazard) added. Not for frailty models, yet (on the TODO list). * mlreg: New argument, 'n.points', added to 'control'. Controls the number of points used in the Gauss-Hermite quadrature. * mlreg: Stricter

A new version (0.96.3) of the package 'eha' is now on CRAN. Apart from some bug fixes, there are some news. The most noteworthy are: (i) 'plot.Surv' has a few new options, (ii) 'weibreg' now can fit null models (i.e., only scale and shape) and covariates are no longer automatically centered (although this is still the default), (iii) there is a new function,

A new version of 'eha' (0.92-1) is now on CRAN. From the ChangeLog: 0.92-1 (January 7, 2004) * mlreg: Geometric distribution (i.e., constant baseline discrete hazard) added. Not for frailty models, yet (on the TODO list). * mlreg: New argument, 'n.points', added to 'control'. Controls the number of points used in the Gauss-Hermite quadrature. * mlreg: Stricter

Dear all, I'm struggling with predicting "expected time until death" for a coxph and survreg model. I have two datasets. Dataset 1 includes a certain number of people for which I know a vector of covariates (age, gender, etc.) and their event times (i.e., I know whether they have died and when if death occurred prior to the end of the observation period). Dataset 2 includes another

The combination of survfit, coxph, and factors is getting confused. It is not smart enough to match a new data frame that contains a numeric for sitenew to a fit that contained that variable as a factor. (Perhaps it should be smart enough to at least die gracefully -- but it's not). The simple solution is to not use factors. site1 <- 1*(coxsnps$sitenew==1) site2 <-

As stated in the design paragraph, this design does not intend to model precise CFG at instruction level since it’s complicated and unnecessary. As long as we comply C and C++ rules listed below, we achieve -EHa semantic. There is NO need to precisely model HW exception control flow at instruction-level. Your example about memcpy() is just a bug in current implementation. I will fix it so that

This kind of error seems to surprise R users. It surprises me that it doesn't happen much more frequently. The "BFGS" method of optim() from the 1990 Pascal version of my book was called the Variable Metric method as per Fletcher's 1970 paper it was drawn from. It really works much better with analytic gradients, and the Rvmmin package which is an all-R version that adds bounds

Hi list! I'm getting an error message when trying to fit an accelerated failure time parametric model using the aftreg() function from package eha: > Error in optim(beta, Fmin, method = "BFGS", control = list(trace = > as.integer(printlevel)), : > non-finite finite-difference value [2] This only happens when adding four specific covariates at the same time in the

Hi I am estimating the following coxph function with stratification and frailty?where each person had multiple events. m<-coxph(Surv(dtime1,status1)~gender+cage+uplf+strata(enum)+frailty(id),xmodel) ? > head(xmodel) id enum dtime status gender cage uplf 1 1008666 1 2259.1412037 1 MA 0.000 0 2 1008666 2 36.7495023 1 MA 2259.141 0 3 1008666