similar to: binomial glm for relevant feature selection?

I have a very simple problem. When using glm to fit binary logistic regression model, sometimes I receive the following warning: Warning messages: 1: fitted probabilities numerically 0 or 1 occurred in: glm.fit(x = X, y = Y, weights = weights, start = start, etastart = etastart, 2: fitted probabilities numerically 0 or 1 occurred in: glm.fit(x = X, y = Y, weights = weights, start = start,

Hello R Users, when I use summary(glm) for a logistic regression model with logit as link function I get one column "z value". What kind of test does R use? (I would have expected a t-test). Thanks, Anne -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read

I am fitting models to the responses to a questionnaire that has seven yes/no questions (Item). For each combination of Subject and Item, the variable Response is coded as 0 or 1. I want to include random effects for both Subject and Item. While I understand that the datasets are fairly small, and there are a lot of invariant subjects, I do not understand something that is happening here, and in

Dear Masters, first I'd like to wish u all a great 2011 and happy holydays by now, second (here it come the boring stuff) I have a question to which I hope u would answer: I run a logistic regression by glm(), on the following data type (y1=1,x1=x1); (y2=0,x2=x2);......(yn=0,xn=xn), where the response (y) is abinary outcome on 0,1 amd x is any explanatory variable (continuous or not)

Dear R-help, I am trying to make logistic regression analysis using the R function "glm", with the parameter family set to binomial, in order to use a logistic regression model. I have 70 samples. The dependent variables has two levels (0 and 1) and one of the independent variables has too two levels (0 and 1). The variables associate in the way shown in the table:

I just ran example(glm) and happened to notice that models based on the Gamma distribution gives a t test, while the Poisson models give a z test. Why? Both are b/s.e., aren't they? I can't find documentation supporting the claim that the distribution is more like t in one case than another, except in the Gaussian case (where it really is t). Aren't all of the others approximations

Dear all, Is there any function for calculating confidence limits for coefficients in an lm() object? I know of the confint() function in the MASS library working very well on my binomial GLMs and I have tried it (using glm () , family=gaussian) but it gives NAs according to below. Does the confint() function not accept gaussian GLMs? Could there be convergence problems in the GLM? Note the

I have tightened the tolerances in glm.control in R-devel (aka 1.8.0 Under Development) from epsilon = 1e-4 to 1e-8, and increases maxit from 10 to 25. Normally the effect is to do one more iteration and get more accurate results. However, in cases of partial separation several more iterations will be done and it will be clearer from the results which parameters are converging and which are

Hallo all, I have the following glm model: f1 <- as.formula(paste("factor(y.fondi)~", "flgsess + segmeta2 + udm + zona.geo + ultimo.prod.", "+flg.a2 + flg.d.na2 + flg.v2 + flg.cc2", " +(flg.a1 + flg.d.na1 + flg.v1 + flg.cc1)^2", " + flg.a2:flg.d.na2 + flg.a2:flg.v2 +

This is a question about removing the intercept in a binomial glm() model with categorical predictors. V&R (3rd Ed. Ch7) and Chambers & Hastie (1993) were very helpful but I wasn't sure I got all the answers. In a simplistic example suppose I want to explore how disability (3 levels, profound, severe, and mild) affects the dichotomized outcome. The glm1 model (see below) is

Following p.206 of "Statistical Models in S", I wish to change the code for summary.glm() so that it estimates the dispersion for binomial & poisson models when the parameter dispersion is set to zero. The following changes [insertion of ||dispersion==0 at one point; and !is.null(dispersion) at another] will do the trick: "summary.glm" <- function(object, dispersion =

With ggplot2, I can plot the glm stat_smooth for binomial data when the response is binary or a two-level factor as follows: data("Donner", package="vcdExtra") ggplot(Donner, aes(age, survived)) + geom_point(position = position_jitter(height = 0.02, width = 0)) + stat_smooth(method = "glm", family = binomial, formula = y ~ x, alpha = 0.2, size=2) But how can I

Dear list, I want to perform a logistic regression analysis with multiple categorical predictors (i.e., a logit) on some data where there is a very definite relationship between one predicator and the response/independent variable. The problem I have is that in such a case the p value goes very high (while I as a naive newbie would expect it to crash towards 0). I'll illustrate my problem

Dear members, here is my trouble: My data consists of counts of trapped insects in different attractive traps. I usually use GLMs with a poisson error distribution to find out the differences between my traitments (and to look at other factor effects). But for some dataset where one traitment contains only zeros, GLM with poisson family fail to find any difference between this particular traitment

Hi Folks, I'm playing with glm.nb() in MASS. Reference: the negative binomial distribution P(y) = (Gamma(theta+y)/(Gamma(theta)*y!))*(p^theta)*(1-p)^y y = 0,1,2,... in the notation of the MASS book (section 7.4), where p = theta/(mu + theta) so (1-p) = mu/(mu + theta) where mu is the expected value of Y. It seems from ?glm.nb that an initial value of theta is either supplied, or

Dear list, >From an earlier post I got the impression that one could promote warnings from a glm to errors (presumably by putting options(warn=1)?), then try() would flag them as errors. I?ve spent half the day trying to do this, but no luck. Do you have an explicit solution? My problems is that I am trying to figure out during what conditions one may find 5 significant parameters in a

Good evening from Singapore! The foremost question which I want to ask is, what is the universal (world wide) understanding behind degaussing hard drives? I work for No Secrets Agency (NSA) Pte Ltd (fictitious company name used). My sales manager Edward Joseph Snowden (fictitious individual name used) had *promised* our customer Leave Me in the Lurch (S) Pte Ltd (fictitious company name used)

Hello, On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:01:56 -0400 m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming wrote: > > Good evening from Singapore! > > > > The foremost question which I want to ask is, what is the universal > > (world wide) understanding behind degaussing hard drives? > > > > I work for No Secrets Agency (NSA) Pte Ltd (fictitious company name

I'm running lmer repeatedly on artificial data with two fixed factors (called 'gender' and 'stress') and one random factor ('speaker'). Gender is a between-speaker variable, stress is a within-speaker variable, if that matters. Each dataset has 100 rows from each of 20 speakers, 2000 rows in all. About 5% of the time I get a strange result, where the lmer() model with

Hi, I am puzzled by the relationship between the p-values asociated with the coefficients of a univariate logistic regression involving categorical variables and the p-value I get from Fisher's exact test of the associated 2 x 2 contingency table. (1) The 2-sided p-value for the table is ~ 0.0015, whereas the p-value for the independent is 0.101 and the p-value for the intercept is