similar to: na.action in stats::factanal()

hi, Does factanal() force the user to use the formula interface if they wish to specify an na.action? v1 <- c(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,NA,1,3,3,3,3,3,4,5,6) v2 <- c(1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,3,NA,3,3,3,4,6,5) v3 <- c(3,3,3,3,3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,5,4,6) v4 <- c(3,3,4,NA,3,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,NA,1,5,6,4) v5 <- c(1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,3,3,1,1,1,1,1,6,4,5) v6 <- c(1,1,1,2,1,3,3,3,4,3,1,1,1,2,1,6,5,4) m1

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

I tried to compare if cch() and coxph() can generate same result for same case cohort data Use the standard data in cch(): nwtco Since in cch contains the cohort size=4028, while ccoh.data size =1154 after selection, but coxph does not contain info of cohort size=4028. The rough estimate between coxph() and cch() is same, but the lower and upper CI and P-value are a little different. Can we

A recent question in r-help made me realize that I should add a drop1 method for coxph and survreg. The default does not handle strata() or cluster() properly. However, for coxph the right options for the "test" argument would be likelihood-ratio, score, and Wald; not chisq and F. All of them reference a chi-square distribution. My thought is use these arguments, and add an

First, as others have said please obey the mailing list rules and turn of First, as others have said please obey the mailing list rules and turn off html, not everyone uses an html email client. Here is your code, formatted and with line numbers added. I also fixed one error: "y" should be "status". 1. fit0 <- coxph(Surv(futime, status) ~ x1 + x2 + x3, data = data0) 2. p

----- begin included message In case cohort study, we can fit proportional hazard regression model to case-cohort data. In R, the function is cch() in Survival package Now I am working on case cohort analysis with time dependent covariates using cch() of "Survival" R package. I wonder if cch() provide this utility or not? The cch() manual does not say if time dependent covariate is

For any given pre-specified gene or short list of genes, yes the Cox model works fine. Two important caveats: 1. Remeber the rule of thumb for a Cox model of 20 events per variable (not n=20). Many microarray studies will have very marginal sample size. 2. If you are looking at many genes then a completely different strategy is required. There is a large and growing literature; I like Newton

I've never seen this, and have no idea how to reproduce it. For resloution you are going to have to give me a working example of the failure. Also, per the posting guide, what is your sessionInfo()? Terry Therneau On 08/09/2012 04:11 AM, r-help-request at r-project.org wrote: > I have a couple of questions with regards to fitting a coxph model to a data > set in R: > > I have a

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 <-

Hello, I'm trying to use coxph() function to fit a very simple Cox proportional hazards regression model (only one covariate) but the parameter space is restricted to an open set (0, 1). Can I still obtain a valid estimate by using coxph function in this scenario? If yes, how? Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

First a statistical issue: The survfit routine will produce predicted survival curves for any requested combination of the covariates in the original model. This is not the same thing as an "adjusted" survival curve. Confusion on this is prevalent, however. True adjustment requires a population average over the confounding factors and is closely related to the standardized

I should hope that there is trouble, since "type III" is an undefined concept for a Cox model. Since SAS Inc fostered the cult of type III they have recently added it as an option for phreg, but I am not able to find any hints in the phreg documentation of what exactly they are doing when you invoke it. If you can unearth this information, then I will be happy to tell you whether

Dear friends, I'm using R to produce the following Factor Analysis: > matriz.cor<-hetcor(matrix(as.factor(data), ncol=variables, byrow=T))$correlations > factanal(x=data, factors=2, covmat=matriz.cor, scores='regression') Then the screen output shows the following message: Error en factanal(x = data, factors = 2, covmat = matrix, : requested scores without

Hi list, I was trying to use "predict.coxph" to calculate martingale residuals on a test data, however, as pointed out before http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/e4/help/08/06/13508.html predict(mycox1, newdata, type="expected") is not implemented yet. Dieter suggested to use 'cph' and 'predict.Design', but from my reading so far, I'm not sure they can

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

Dear Terry, Even the behaviour of lm() and glm() isn't entirely consistent. In both cases, singularity results in NA coefficients by default, and these are reported in the model summary and coefficient vector, but not in the coefficient covariance matrix: ---------------- > mod.lm <- lm(Employed ~ GNP + Population + I(GNP + Population), + data=longley) >

I've narrowed my scope problems with predict.coxph further. Here is a condensed example: fcall3 <- as.formula("time ~ age") dfun3 <- function(dcall) { fit <- lm(dcall, data=lung, model=FALSE) model.frame(fit) } dfun3(fcall3) The final call fails: it can't find 'dcall'. The relevant code in model.frame.lm is: env <- environment(formula$terms)

--begin inclusion -- I have a matched-case control dataset that I'm using conditional logistic regression (clogit in survival) to analyze. I'm trying to conduct k-folds cross validation on my top models but all of the packages I can find (CVbinary in DAAG, KVX) won't work with clogit models. Is there any easy way to do this in R? -end inclusion -- The clogit funciton is simply a

Hi, I wonder why factor scores produced by factanal are correlated, and I'd appreciate any hints from people that may help me to get a deeper understanding why that's the case. By the way: I'm a psychologist used to SPSS, so that question my sound a little silly to your ears. Here's my minimal example: *********************************************** v1 <-

Hello, I have questions regarding penalized Cox regression using survival package (functions coxph() and ridge()). I am using R 2.8.0 on Ubuntu Linux and survival package version 2.35-4. Question 1. Consider the following example from help(ridge): > fit1 <- coxph(Surv(futime, fustat) ~ rx + ridge(age, ecog.ps, theta=1), ovarian) As I understand, this builds a model in which `rx' is