similar to: Lme warning with coef()

Paul: I may have found the issue (which is similar to your conclusion). I checked using egsingle in the mlmRev package as these individuals are strictly nested in this case: library(mlmRev) library(nlme) fm1 <- lme(math ~ year, random=~1|schoolid/childid, egsingle) fm2 <- lmer(math ~ year +(1|schoolid:childid) + (1|schoolid), egsingle) Checking the summary of both models, the output is

Why are the results not reliable? ________________________________ From: ESCHEN Rene [mailto:rene.eschen@unifr.ch] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:48 AM To: Spencer Graves; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch Cc: Doran, Harold Subject: RE: [R] Random structure of nested design in lme The output of the suggested lmer model looks very similar to the output of aov, also when I ran the model

This question comes up periodically, probably enough to give it a proper thread and maybe point to this thread for reference (similar to the 'conservative anova' thread not too long ago). Moving from lme syntax, which is the function found in the nlme package, to lmer syntax (found in lme4) is not too difficult. It is probably useful to first explain what the differences are between the

Dear List: I am having some trouble reproducing some GLS estimates using matrix operations that I am not having with other R procedures. Here are some sample data to see what I am doing along with all code: mu<-c(100,150,200,250) Sigma<-matrix(c(400,80,16,3.2,80,400,80,16,16,80,400,80,3.2,16,80,400),n c=4) sample.size<-100 temp <-

r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 at 6:00 AM -0500 wrote: Ronaldo, Try Harold's suggestion. The df still won't agree, because lmer (at least in its current version) just puts an upper bound on the df. But that should be OK, because all those t tests are approximations anyways, and you can get better confidence intervals (credible intervals, whatever) by using the

Hello, I am estimating the following model: so2.lme<-lme(so2~1+I(alcadakm^2)+dia,data=subjectes2,na.action=na.omit) And when I try to plot the random effects of the quadratic term with respect to a covariate (mam) I get an error: > so2.lmeRE<-ranef(so2.lme,augFrame=T) > plot(so2.lmeRE,form=I(alcadakm^2)~mam) Error in plot.ranef.lme(so2.lmeRE, form = I(alcadakm^2) ~ mam ) : Only

Just out of curiosity, why might this be occuring: > class(x6) [1] "mcmc" > crosscorr.plot(x6) NULL # Replicable code example(lmer) x6 <- mcmcsamp(fm1, n=1000) crosscorr.plot(x6)

library(nlme) data(Phenobarb) na.include <- function(x)x phe1 <- nlme(conc~phenoModel(Subject, time, dose, lCl, lV), data = Phenobarb, fixed = lCl+lV~1, random= pdDiag(lCl+lV~1), start = c(-5,0), na.action = na.include, naPattern = ~!is.na(conc)) phe.ranef <- ranef(phe1,augFrame=TRUE) plot(phe.ranef, form=lCl~Wt+ApgarInd) [Error in max(length(x0),

Greetings, 1) Is there a nice way of extracting the variance estimates from an lme fit? They don't seem to be part of the lme object. 2) In a series of simulations, I am finding that with ML fitting one of my random effect variances is sometimes being estimated as essentially zero with massive CI instead of the finite value it should have, whilst using REML I get the expected value. I guess

Dear list In HLM, one can specify a covariate at one of the "levels". For example, if the data structure are repeated observations nested within students nested within schools, school size might be a covariate that is used at level 3, but not at the other levels. In HLM this is rather easy to do. However, how can one specify a covariate in R for only one of the levels? I have a

Hi Folks, I'm trying to understand the model specification formalities for 'lme', and the documentation is leaving me a bit confused. Specifically, using the example dataset 'Orthodont' in the 'nlme' package, first I use the invocation given in the example shown by "?lme": > fm1 <- lme(distance ~ age, data = Orthodont) # random is ~ age Despite the

When I try to run the example from Variogram with an lme object, I get an error (although summary works): R : Copyright 2005, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Version 2.2.1 (2005-12-20 r36812) ISBN 3-900051-07-0 ... > fm1 <- lme(weight ~ Time * Diet, BodyWeight, ~ Time | Rat) Error: couldn't find function "lme" > Variogram(fm1, form = ~ Time | Rat, nint =

dear all, I would like to get the lme call without fitting the relevant model. library(nlme) data(Orthodont) fm1 <- lme(distance ~ age, random=list(Subject=~age),data = Orthodont) To get fm1$call without fitting the model I use call(): my.cc<-call("lme.formula", fixed= distance ~ age, random = list(Subject = ~age)) However the two calls are not the same (apart from the data

FYI, in R devel (to become 3.5.0), there's isFALSE() which will cut some corners compared to identical(): > microbenchmark::microbenchmark(identical(FALSE, FALSE), isFALSE(FALSE)) Unit: nanoseconds expr min lq mean median uq max neval identical(FALSE, FALSE) 984 1138 1694.13 1218.0 1337.5 13584 100 isFALSE(FALSE) 713 761 1133.53 809.5 871.5

Quite possibly, and I?ll look into that. Aside from the work I was doing, however, I wonder if there is a way such that sapply could avoid the overhead of having to call the identical function to determine the conditional path. From: William Dunlap [mailto:wdunlap at tibco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:14 PM To: Doran, Harold <HDoran at air.org> Cc: Martin Morgan <martin.morgan

I''m a physicist working on fusion energy and dabble in statistics only occasionally, so please excuse gaps in my statistical knowledge. I''d appreciate any help that a real statistics expert could provide. Most people in my field do only very simple statistics, and I am trying to extend some work on multivariate linear regression to account for significant between-group

Hello, I am looking for a way to obtain standard errors for emprirical Bayes estimates of a model fitted with lmer (like the ones plotted on page 14 of the document available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2b/b3/94.pdf). Harold Doran mentioned (http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/help/05/08/10638.html) that the posterior modes' variances

Dear all, I noticed the following in the call of lme using msVerbose. fm1 <- lme(distance ~ age, data = Orthodont, control = lmeControl(msVerbose=T)) 9 318.073: -0.567886 0.152479 1.98021 10 318.073: -0.567191 0.152472 1.98009 11 318.073: -0.567208 0.152473 1.98010 fm2 <- lme(distance ~ age, random =~age, data = Orthodont,

You?re right, it sure does. My suggestion causes it to fail when simplify = ?array? From: William Dunlap [mailto:wdunlap at tibco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:11 PM To: Doran, Harold <HDoran at air.org> Cc: r-help at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] Possible Improvement to sapply Wouldn't that change how simplify='array' is handled? > str(sapply(1:3,

Using ranef() (package nlme, version 3.1-75) with an 'lme' object I can obtain random effects for intercept and slope of a certain level (say: 1) - this corresponds to (say level 1) "residuals" in MLWin. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but the results are identical. However, if I try to get the standardized random effects adding the paramter "standard=T" to the