similar to: lme4_0.6-1 uploaded

Deepayan Sarkar and I have a source package of release candidate 1 of the 0.6 series of the lme4 package available at http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~bates/lme4_0.6-0-1.tar.gz This package requires Matrix_0.8-6 which has been uploaded to CRAN and should be available in a few days. A copy of the source package is available as http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~bates/Matrix_0.8-6.tar.gz

Deepayan Sarkar and I have a source package of release candidate 1 of the 0.6 series of the lme4 package available at http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~bates/lme4_0.6-0-1.tar.gz This package requires Matrix_0.8-6 which has been uploaded to CRAN and should be available in a few days. A copy of the source package is available as http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~bates/Matrix_0.8-6.tar.gz

Hello, I have compared the potentials of R and Stata about GLMM, analysing the dataset 'ohio' in the package 'faraway' (the same dataset is analysed with GEE in the book 'Extending the linear model with R' by Julian Faraway). Basically, I've tried the 2 commands 'glmmPQL' and 'glmer' of R and the command 'xtmelogit' of Stata. If I'm not

Dear R Users, I want to fit GLMM with lmer with binomial data and a one-way random effects model with an overall mean and random effects. From R help, Laplace is slower than PQL, but more accurate. When I fit my model with Laplace method with control = list (usePQL = FALSE)), for most data sets it works well, but for some I get an error message (Error in if (any(sd < 0))

R Users, Emine Bayman sent this out earlier and we do not think it went through. Appologies if it did. We want to fit GLMM with lmer with binomial data and a one-way random effects model (overall mean is a fixed effect and there are random effects for each binomial). We are using the Laplace method. We are simulating multiple data sets and use the Laplace method with control = list

Dear R users I encounter a problem when i perform a generalized linear mixed model (binary data) with the lmer function (package lme4) with R 2.1.0 on windows XP and the latest version of package "lme4" (0.96-1) and "matrix" (0.96-2) both options "PQL" and "Laplace" for the method argument in lmer function gave me the same results (random and fixed effects

Hi all, I've now got a problem with some modified lmer code (function lmer1 pasted at end) - I've made only three changes to the lmer code (marked), and I'm not really looking for comments on this function, but would like to know why execution of the following commands that use it almost invariably (but not quite predictably) leads to the R session terminating. Here's the command

Hi, I'm new to R and GLMMs, and I've been unable to find the answers to my questions by trawling through the R help archives. I'm hoping someone here can help me. I'm running an analysis on Seedling survival (count data=Poisson distribution) on restoration sites, and my main interest is in determining whether the Nutrients (N) and water absorbing polymer Gel (G) additions to the

Hi, I'm new to R and GLMMs, and I've been unable to find the answers to my questions by trawling through the R help archives. I'm hoping someone here can help me. I'm running an analysis on Seedling survival (count data=Poisson distribution) on restoration sites, and my main interest is in determining whether the Nutrients (N) and water absorbing polymer Gel (G) additions to the

> library(MASS) > attach(bacteria) > table(y) y n y 43 177 > y<-1*(y=="y") > table(y,trt) trt y placebo drug drug+ 0 12 18 13 1 84 44 49 > library(lme4) > model1<-lmer(y~trt+(week|ID),family=binomial,method="PQL") Error in match.arg(method, c("Laplace", "AGQ")) : 'arg' should be one of

This is a summary and extension of the thread "GLMM (lme4) vs. glmmPQL output" http://maths.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/help/04/01/0180.html In the new revision (#Version: 0.4-7) of lme4 the standard errors are close to those of the 4 other methods. Thanks to Douglas Bates, Saikat DebRoy for the revision, and to G?ran Brostr?m who run a simulation. In response to my first posting, Prof.

Dear R users, I am estimating Poisson mixed models using glmmPQL (MASS) and lmer (lme4). We know that glmmPQL do not provide the correct loglikelihood for such models (it gives the loglike of a 'pseudo' or working linear mixed model). I would like to know how the loglike is calculated by lmer. A minor question is: why do glmmPQL and lmer give different degrees-of-freedom for the same

Hello all R-user I am relative new to the R-environment and also to GLMM, so please don't be irritated if some questions don't make sense. I am using R 2.0.0 on Windows 2000. I investigated the occurrence of insects (count) in different parts of different plants (plantid) and recorded as well some characteristics of the plant parts (e.g. thickness). It is an unbalanced design with 21

Do Users of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models Know Whether Their Software Really Works? Lesaffre et. al. (Appl. Statist. (2001) 50, Part3, pp 325-335) analyzed some simple clinical trials data using a logistic random effects model. Several packages and methods MIXOR, SAS NLMIXED were employed. They reported obtaining very different parameter estimates and P

> > If one compares the random effect estimates, in fact, one sees that > > they are in the correct proportion, with the expected signs. They are > > just approximately eight orders of magnitude too small. Is this a bug? > > BLUPs are essentially shrinkage estimates, where shrinkage is > determined with magnitude of variance. Lower variance more > shrinkage towards

Dear all, dear Prof. Bates, my dependent variable (school absenteeism, truancy[1]) is a binary response for which I am trying to compute an unconditional mixed effects model. I've got observations (monday, wednesday and friday) nested in individuals (ID2), which were nested in classes (KID2) and schools (SID), i.e. a 4-level mixed effects model. In short, I was trying without success. I

Thanks to those who responded to my inquiry about generalized linear mixed models on R and S-plus. Before I summarize the software, I note that there are several ways of doing statistical inference for generalized linear mixed models: (1)Standard maximum likelihood estimation, computationally intensive due to intractable likelihood function (2) Penalized quasi likelihood or similar

Dear list members, In re-running with GLMM() from the lme4 package a generalized-linear mixed model that I had previously fit with glmmPQL() from MASS, I'm getting a warning of a convergence failure, even when I set the method argument of GLMM() to "PQL": > bang.mod.1 <- glmmPQL(contraception ~ as.factor(children) + cage + urban, + random=~as.factor(children) + cage +

Dear all, I am trying to understand the output from a binomial lmer object and why the scaling of a fixed effect changes the variance components. In the model p2rec is cbind(number recruits2,number recruits 1), Pop is populations (five level factor) and ja is year (covariate running from 1955-2004). I.e. biologically I am interested to see how the proportion of recruits from the second

Hi -- I'm using lmer for binomial data. I am trying to replicate estimates provided by Agresti (2002, Categorical data analysis, Wiley) using abortion data in table 10.13 (estimates provided in table 12.3 p. 505). I fit the same model using these three commands: a1 <- lmer(resp ~ sex + option1 + option2 + (1|id), data=abort,family=binomial, method = c("AGQ")) a2 <-