similar to: Trouble Computing Type III SS in a Cox Regression using drop1 and Anova

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

Hi I am trying to determine the mean of a Weibull function that has been fit to a data set, adjusted for a categorical covariate , gender (0=male,1=female). Here is my code: library(survival) survdata<-read.csv("data.csv") ##Fit Weibull model to data WeiModel<-survreg(Surv(survdata$Time,survdata$Status)~survdata$gender) summary(WeiModel) P<-pweibull(n,

Dear all, I'm trying to fit a curve to some 1 year failure-time data, so that I can extrapolate and predict failure rates up to 3 years. The data is in the general form: Treatment Time Status Treatment A 28 0 Treatment B 28 0 Treatment B 28 0 Treatment A 28

Hi Paul, No need to collapse the information into a single text string, gregexpr() can take a vector of strings (sentences in your case). You can split your sentences up, number them how you want, then search for your pattern either via regex or via these extra packages you use which probably use the PCRE regex library anyway. However, as this is basically what you did, I'm not sure why

Hello, I want to use lme to fit two (or more) models, and then compare the fits on each individual. I know how to write my own code to do this (for each individual, plot the raw data, followed by lines() to plot each fitted curve) but I would like to use plot(augPred(... as it produces a nice trellis plot. I thought I could do this with par(new=T) but it does not seem to work.

Have you looked at the CRAN Natural Language Processing Task View? If not, why not? If so, why were the resources described there inadequate? Bert On Jul 11, 2017 10:49 AM, "Paul Miller via R-help" <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > I need some help figuring out how to extract combinations of target > words/terms from cancer patient text medical

Hello All, I need some help figuring out how to extract combinations of target words/terms from cancer patient text medical records. I've provided some sample data and code below to illustrate what I'm trying to do. At the moment, I'm trying to extract sentences that contain the word "breast" plus either "metastatic" or "stage IV". It's been some

the data is : >table.8.3<-data.frame(expand.grid( marijuana=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes")), cigarette=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes")), alcohol=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes"))), count=c(911,538,44,456,3,43,2,279))

Hi Robert, Thank you for your reply. An attempt to solve this via a regular expression query is particularly helpful. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to play around with this just now. Ultimately though, I think I would like to implement a solution something along the lines of what you have done. I have a book on regular expressions that I am now starting to read. In the meantime, the

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

Dear List, recently tried to reproduce the results of some custom model selection function after updating R, which unfortunately failed. However, I ultimately found the issue to be that testing with pchisq() in drop1() seems to have changed. In the below example, earlier versions (e.g. R 2.4.1) produce a missing P-value for the variable x, while newer versions (e.g. R 2.7.1) produce 0 (2.2e-16).

This is probably simple, but I just can't see it... I want to calculate the R^2s for a series of linear models where each term is dropped in turn. I can get the RSS from drop1(), and the r.squared from summary() for a given model, but don't know how to use the result of drop1() to get the r.squared for each model with one term dropped. Working example: library(vcd) # for

Hi, If I used drop1 in a weighted lm fit, it seems to ignore the weights in the AIC calculation of the dropped terms, see the example below. Can this be right? Yan -------------------- library(car) > unweighted.model <- lm(trSex ~ (river+length +depth)^2- length:depth, dno2) > Anova(unweighted.model) Anova Table (Type II tests) Response: trSex Sum Sq Df F value

Dear R Core Team I've a proposal to improve drop1(). The function should change the contrast from the default ("treatment") to "sum". If you fit a model with an interaction (which ist not signifikant) and you display the main effect with drop1( , scope = .~., test = "F") If you remove the interaction, then everything's okay. There is no way to fit a

By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $ to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and residuals()), it becomes *much* easier to extend drop1 to work with other model types. The use of $ rather than accessors in this context seems to be an oversight rather than a design decision, but maybe someone knows better ... In particular, if one makes these changes (which I am

Yes, it's homework . . . delete now if desired . . . but I think it is an interesting problem. Running R 2.11.1, LaTeX on WinXP, via Sweave. A drop1() object from a glm() produces, as part of its output, a string that looks like this: <none> The trouble I run into is that running latex() on a drop1() object from glm() produces a string that looks like this in the generated .tex

I've been experimenting with drop1 for my biostatistics class, to obtain the so-called Type III sums of squares. I am fully aware of the deficiencies of this method, however I feel that the students should be familiar with it. What I find baffling is that when applied to a fully balanced design, you obtain different sums of squares. I've used this for several years in Splus and R and never

My apologies to the list for sending this without adequate research. I have found my answer; please ignore! Thanks. I've been experimenting with drop1 for my biostatistics class, to obtain the so-called Type III sums of squares. I am fully aware of the deficiencies of this method, however I feel that the students should be familiar with it. What I find baffling is that when applied to a fully

Hi, I was wondering why anova() and drop1() give different tail probabilities for F tests. I guess overdispersion is calculated differently in the following example, but why? Thanks for any advice, Tom For example: > x<-c(2,3,4,5,6) > y<-c(0,1,0,0,1) > b1<-glm(y~x,binomial) > b2<-glm(y~1,binomial) > drop1(b1,test="F") Single term deletions Model: y ~

I would like to do a SS type III analysis on a proportional odds logistic regression model. I use drop1(), but dropterm() shows the same behaviour. It works as expected for regular main effects models, however when the model includes an interaction effect it seems to have problems with matching the parameters to the predictor terms. An example: library("MASS"); options(contrasts =