Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "Weights using Survreg"
2005 Oct 19
1
Weights in survReg
Dear R users,
I am trying to find out what the function survReg does exactly with the
Weights parameters. I looked in Terry Therneau documentations and other
places and couldn't find anything. I tried to make an analogy with weighted
OLS and assumed that the scale parameter Sigma in the accelerated
failure-time model log(Time)= X*betas +Sigma*E, is of the form Sigma(i) =
2005 May 03
2
comparing lm(), survreg( ... , dist="gaussian") and survreg( ... , dist="lognormal")
Dear R-Helpers:
I have tried everything I can think of and hope not to appear too foolish
when my error is pointed out to me.
I have some real data (18 points) that look linear on a log-log plot so I
used them for a comparison of lm() and survreg. There are no suspensions.
survreg.df <- data.frame(Cycles=c(2009000, 577000, 145000, 376000, 37000,
979000, 17420000, 71065000, 46397000,
2009 Mar 08
2
survreg help in R
Hey all,
I am trying to use the survreg function in R to estimate the mean and
standard deviation to come up with the MLE of alpha and lambda for the
weibull distribution. I am doing the following:
times<-c(10,13,18,19,23,30,36,38,54,56,59,75,93,97,104,107,107,107)
censor<-c(1,0,0,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0)
survreg(Surv(times,censor),dist='weibull')
and I get the following
2012 Nov 15
2
survreg & gompertz
Hi all,
Sorry if this has been answered already, but I couldn't find it in the
archives or general internet.
Is it possible to implement the gompertz distribution as
survreg.distribution to use with survreg of the survival library?
I haven't found anything and recent attempts from my side weren't
succefull so far.
I know that other packages like 'eha' and
2008 Apr 25
3
Use of survreg.distributions
Dear R-user:
I am using survreg(Surv()) for fitting a Tobit model of left-censored longitudinal data. For logarithmic transformation of y data, I am trying use survreg.distributions in the following way:
tfit=survreg(Surv(y, y>=-5, type="left")~x + cluster(id), dist="gaussian", data=y.data, scale=0, weights=w)
my.gaussian<-survreg.distributions$gaussian
2011 May 14
2
Survreg object
Hi,Just a quick one, does anyone know the command for accessing the standard errors from a survreg object? I can access the coefficients by model$coefficients, but I cant seem to find a command to access the errors. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Regards,Andre
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
2011 Jan 10
4
Meaning of pterms in survreg object?
I am trying to model survival data with a Weibull distribution
using survreg. Units are clustered two apiece, sometimes receiving
the same treatment and sometimes opposing treatment.
2010 Nov 25
2
aftreg vs survreg loglogistic aft model (different intercept term)
Hi, I'm estimating a loglogistic aft (accelerated failure time) model, just a
simple plain vanilla one (without time dependent covariates), I'm comparing
the results that I obtain between aftreg (eha package) and survreg(surv
package). If I don't use any covariate the results are identical , if I add
covariates all the coefficients are the same until a precision of 10^4 or
10^-5 except
2005 Apr 26
1
survreg with numerical covariates
Does anyone know if the survreg function in the survival package can fit
numerical covariates ?
When I fit a survival model of the form
survreg( Surv(time,censored) ~ x )
then x is always treated as a factor even if it is numeric (and even if
I try to force it to be numeric using as.numeric(x). Thus, in the
particular example I am analysing, a simple numerical covariate becomes
a factor
2004 May 24
1
bug in extractAIC.survreg (PR#6910)
Full_Name: Dave Ramsey
Version: 1.8.0
OS: win2000
Submission from: (NULL) (202.27.240.6)
there is a bug in extractAIC.survreg in library MASS.
A survreg model object has no component called "residuals". Hence
n <- length(fit$residuals)
returns 0 resulting in errors
workaround: replace
n <- length(fit$residuals)
with
n <- length(residuals(fit))
### sorry: error
2009 Nov 13
2
survreg function in survival package
Hi,
Is it normal to get intercept in the list of covariates in the output of survreg function with standard error, z, p.value etc? Does it mean that intercept was fitted with the covariates? Does Value column represent coefficients or some thing else?
Regards,
-------------------------------------------------
tmp = survreg(Surv(futime, fustat) ~ ecog.ps + rx, ovarian,
2003 Feb 27
2
interval-censored data in survreg()
I am trying to fit a lognormal distribution on interval-censored
data. Some of my intervals have a lower bound of zero.
Unfortunately, it seems like survreg() cannot deal with lower
bounds of zero, despite the fact that plnorm(0)==0 and
pnorm(-Inf)==0 are well defined. Below is a short example to
reproduce the problem.
Does anyone know why survreg() must behave that way?
Is there an alternate
2006 Feb 13
2
Survreg(), Surv() and interval-censored data
Can survreg() handle interval-censored data like the documentation
says? I ask because the command:
survreg(Surv(start, stop, event) ~ 1, data = heart)
fails with the error message
Invalid survival type
yet the documentation for Surv() states:
"Presently, the only methods allowing interval censored data are
the parametric models computed by 'survreg'"
2008 Apr 17
1
survreg() with frailty
Dear R-users,
I have noticed small discrepencies in the reported estimate of the
variance of the frailty by the print method for survreg() and the
'theta' component included in the object fit:
# Examples in R-2.6.2 for Windows
library(survival) # version 2.34-1 (2008-03-31)
# discrepancy
fit1 <- survreg(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + frailty(litter), rats)
fit1
fit1$history[[1]]$theta
2007 Jul 11
2
p-value from survreg(), library(survival)
dear r experts:
It seems my message got spam filtered, another try:
i would appreciate advice on how to get the p-value from the object 'sr'
created with the function survreg() as given below.
vlad
sr<-survreg(s~groups, dist="gaussian")
Coefficients:
(Intercept) groups
-0.02138485 0.03868351
Scale= 0.01789372
Loglik(model)= 31.1 Loglik(intercept only)= 25.4
2005 Nov 18
1
Truncated observations in survreg
Dear R-list
I have been trying to make survreg fit a normal regression model with left
truncated data, but unfortunately I am not able to figure out how to do it.
The following survreg-call seems to work just fine when the observations are
right censored:
library(survival)
n<-100000
#censored observations
x<-rnorm(n)
y<-rnorm(n,mean=x)
d<-data.frame(x,y)
d$ym<-pmin(y,0.5)
2002 Nov 13
2
survreg (survival) reports erroneous results for left-censored data (PR#2287)
Full_Name: Tim Cohn
Version: 1.6.1
OS: Macintosh OS X
Submission from: (NULL) (130.11.34.250)
The Mac version of survreg does not handle left-censored data correctly (at
least the results are not what I get doing it other ways, and they are not the
same as I get running R 1.6.1 in Windows 98se; the Windows 98 results are
correct). On the windows version of R 1.6.1.
>
2007 Nov 29
1
Survreg(), Surv() and interval-censored data
Can anybody give me a neat example of interval censored data analysis codes in R?
Given that suvreg(Surv(c(1,1,NA,3),c(2,NA,2,3),type="interval2")~1)
works why does
survreg(Surv(data[,1],data[,2],type="interval2")~1)
not work where
data is :
T.1 T.2 Status
1 0.0000000 0.62873036 1
2 0.0000000 2.07039068 1
3 0.0000000
2010 Nov 15
1
interpretation of coefficients in survreg AND obtaining the hazard function
1. The weibull is the only distribution that can be written in both a
proportional hazazrds for and an accelerated failure time form. Survreg
uses the latter.
In an ACF model, we model the time to failure. Positive coefficients
are good (longer time to death).
In a PH model, we model the death rate. Positive coefficients are
bad (higher death rate).
You are not the first to be confused
2011 Dec 07
1
survreg() provides same results with different distirbutions for left censored data
Hello,
I'm working with some left censored survival data using accelerated failure
time models. I am interested in fitting different distributions to the data
but seem to be getting the same results from the model fit using survreg
regardless of the assumed distribution.
These two codes seem to provide the same results:
aft.gaussian <-