similar to: coxme with frailty

Hello, I was hoping that someone could answer a few questions for me (the background is given below): 1) Can the coxph accept an interaction between a covariate and a frailty term 2) If so, is it possible to a) test the model in which the covariate and the frailty appear as main terms using the penalized likelihood (for gaussian/t frailties) b)augment model 1) by stratifying on the variable that

Dear all, This probably stems from my lack of understanding of the model, but I do not understand the variance of the random effect reported in coxme. Consider the following toy example: #------------------------------- BEGINNING OF CODE ------------------------------------------------ library(survival) library(coxme) #--- Generate toy data: d <- data.frame(id = c(1:100), #

Dear List, In documents (Therneau, 2003 : On mixed-effect cox models, ...), as far as I came to know, coxme penalize the partial likelihood (Ripatti, Palmgren, 2000) where as frailtyPenal (in frailtypack package) uses the penalized the full likelihood approach (Rondeau et al, 2003). How, then, coxme and coxph(...frailty(id, dist='gauss')) differs? Just the coding algorithm, or in

Hello, I am running R 2.6.1 on windows xp I am trying to fit a cox proportional hazard model with a shared Gaussian frailty term using coxme My model is specified as: nofit1<-coxme(Surv(Age,cen1new)~ Sex+bo2+bo3,random=~1|isl,data=mydat) With x1-x3 being dummy variables, and isl being the community level variable with 4 levels. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the standard error

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jerome Asselin wrote: > > I am confused on how the log-likelihood is calculated in a parametric > survival problem with frailty. I see a contradiction in the frailty() help > file vs. the source code of frailty.gamma(), frailty.gaussian() and > frailty.t(). > > The function frailty.gaussian() appears to calculate the penalty as the > negative

Dear R users, I'm trying to fit a gamma-frailty model on a simulated dataset, with 6 covariates, and I'm running into some results I do not understand. I constructed an example from my simulation code, where I fit a coxph model without frailty (M1) and with frailty (M2) on a number of data samples with a varying degree of heterogeneity (I'm running R 2.3.1, running takes ~1 min).

-- begin included message -- Hi, but why we do the difference : ltemp <- 2 * diff(tfit $loglik[1:2]) ?? Where I can find information about Integrate Likelihooh and null like lihood?? --- end inclusion --- 1. Basic statistical fact: 2 * difference in loglik between two nested models = distributed as a chi-square distribution. For coxme loglik[1] = likelihood from a null model (all coefs

Hello, I have a question concerning fitting a cox model with a random intercept, also known as a frailty model. I am using both the coxme package, and the frailty statement in coxph. Often 'shared' frailty models are implemented in practice, to group people who are from a cluster to account for homogeneity in outcomes for people from the same cluster. I am more interested in the classic

SEE ALSO ORIGINAL POSTING IN PR#2933 On May 6, 2003 03:58 pm, Thomas Lumley wrote: > > Looking at a wider context in the code > > pfun <- function(coef, theta, ndeath) { > if (theta == 0) > list(recenter = 0, penalty = 0, flag = TRUE) > else { > recenter <- log(mean(exp(coef))) > coef <- coef - recenter

Dear All, The "coxph" function in the "survival" package allows multiple frailty terms. In all the examples I saw, however, the frailty terms are nested. What will happen if I have non-nested (that is, cross-classified) frailties in the model? Will the model still work? Do I need to take special cares when specifying these models? Thanks! Shige [[alternative HTML

Does someone know the rules by which 'coxph' returns 'frail', the predicted frailty terms? In my test function: ----------------------------------------------- fr <- function(){ #testing(frailty terms in 'survival' require(survival) dat <- data.frame(exit = 1:6, event = rep(1, 6), x = rep(c(0, 1), 3),

Hi, I have a question about the output for variance of random effect from a gamma frailty model using coxph in R. Is it the vairance of frailties themselves or variance of log frailties? Thanks. Guanghui

Dear R-help, I am trying to estimate a Cox model with nested effects, or better h(t,v,w)=v*w*h0(t)*exp(B'x) where h(t,v,w) is the individual hazard function w and v are both frailty terms (gamma or normal distributed) I have 12 clusters and for each one of them I would like to associate a realization of v, while w is a random effect for the whole population. At the population level

Dear R users: I'm generating the following survival data: set.seed(123) n=200 #sample size x=rbinom(n,size=1,prob=.5) #binomial treatment v=rgamma(n,shape=1,scale=1) #gamma frailty w=rweibull(n,shape=1,scale=1) #Weibull deviates b=-log(2) #treatment's slope t=exp( -x*b -log(v) + log(w) ) #failure times c=rep(1,n) #uncensored indicator id=seq(1:n) #individual frailty indicator

Dear all, I have a data set<http://yaap.it/paste/c11b9fdcfd68d02b#gIVtLrrme3MaiQd9hHy1zcTjRq7VsVQ8eAZ2fol1lUc=>with 6 clusters, each containing 48 (possibly censored, in which case "event = 0") survival times. The "x" column contains a binary explanatory variable. I try to describe that data with a gamma frailty model as follows: library(survival) mod <-

Dear List, Can anyone please explain the difference between cluster() and frailty() in a coxph? I am a bit puzzled about it. Would appreciate any useful reference or direction. cheers, Ehsan > marginal.model <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + cluster(litter), rats) > frailty.model <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ rx + frailty(litter), rats) > marginal.model Call: coxph(formula =

I am confused on how the log-likelihood is calculated in a parametric survival problem with frailty. I see a contradiction in the frailty() help file vs. the source code of frailty.gamma(), frailty.gaussian() and frailty.t(). The function frailty.gaussian() appears to calculate the penalty as the negative log-density of independent Gaussian variables, as one would expect: >

Dear all, Does the frailty.object$history[[1]]$theta returns the Variance of random effect? Why is the value different? Here is an example with kidney data: > library(survival) > data(kidney) > frailty.object<-coxph(Surv(time, status)~ age + sex + disease + frailty(id), kidney) > frailty.object Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status) ~ age + sex + disease + frailty(id), data

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

Dear all, I have been doing some frailty calculations and been facing some difficulties. I can extract coefficients, value of theta and the following things library(survival) fit<-coxph(Surv(time,status)~covariate+frailty(group), data=simulated.data) fit$coef fit$history[[1]]$theta fit$history[[1]]$c.loglik fit$var fit$var2 from a frailty included coxph object: but how can i know what other