similar to: glmmPQL and REML

Hi, In glmmPQL in the MASS library, the function uses repeated calls to the function lme(), using ML. Does anyone know how you can change this to REML? I know that in lme(), the default is actually set to REML and you can also specify this as 'method=REML' or 'method'ML' but this isn't applicable to glmmPQL(). I'd appreciate any help or advice! Thanks, Emma

Dear all, I am experiencing problems with glmmmPQL. I am trying to analyze binomial data with some spatial autocorrelation. Here is my code and some of the outputs > colnames(d.glmm) [1] "BV" "Longitude" "Latitude" "nb_pc_02" "nb_expr_02" [6] "pc_02" "nb_pc_07" "nb_expr_07"

Hi, I've been using gamm4 to build GAMMs for exploring environmental influences on genetic ancestry. Things have gone well and I have 2 very straightforward questions: 1. I've used method=REML. Am I correct that this is an alternative method for estimating the smooth functions in GAMMs rather than GCV that is often used for GAMs? I've read up on REML and it makes sense, but I'm

Hi, I know that is not possible make a stepwise procedure using REML in R, I can use ML for this. For nested design it may be very dangerous due the difference in variance structure, mainly in a splitplot design. ML make significative variables that REML dont make. I read an article that is made a stepwise procedure using GENSTAT. from article: "Terms were dropped from a model in a

Hello everyone, I hope this is a fair enough question, but I don’t have access to a copy of Bates and Pinheiro. It is probably quite obvious but the answer might be of general interest. If I fit a fixed effect with an added quadratic term and then do it as an orthogonal polynomial using maximum likelihood I get the expected result- they have the same logLik.

Hi everyone, I have been using REML to derive intercepts and coeficients for each individual in a growth study. So the code is m2 <- lmer(change.wt ~ newwt+(newwt|id), data = grow) Calling coef(model.lmer) gives a matrix with this information which is what I want. However, as a test I looked at each individual on its own and used a simple linear regression to obtain the same information, then

hi I'm puzzled as to the relation between the REML score computed by gam and the formula (4) on p.4 here: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/22707/1/Wood_JRSSB_2011_73_1_3.pdf I'm ok with this for poisson, or for quasipoisson when phi=1. However, when phi differs from 1, I'm stuck. #simulate some data library(mgcv) set.seed(1) x1<-runif(500) x2<-rnorm(500)

Can you provide the summary(m2) results? > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Pickett [mailto:S.Pickett at exeter.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:14 AM > To: Doran, Harold > Cc: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [SPAM] - RE: [R] REML with random slopes and random > intercepts giving strange results - Bayesian Filter detected spam > > Hi again,

Estimados R-users: Estoy intentando usar la función 'agrep' para hacer búsquedas en cadenas de texto. El parámetro max.distance permite controlar la medida de aproximación de búsqueda de la función de Levenshtein. No obstante, cuando hago búsquedas específicas no obtengo siempre el resultado deseado y no se si es un bug o que no entiendo bien el algoritmo de búsqueda. Por

Dear all, I am planning to use nlme library for analysis of experiments in semiconductor industry. Currently I am using "lm" but plan to move to "lme" to handle within wafer / wafer-to-wafer and lot-to-lot variation correctly. So far everything is working well, but I have a fundamentel question: NLME offers "maximum likelihood" and "restricted maximum

Hi, All,   My data collection is from 4 regions (a, b, c, d). Within each region, it has 2 or 3 units. Within each unit, it has measurement from about 25 sample site. I was trying to use lme function to discribe relationship between y and a few covariates. Both y and covariates were measured at the sample site level. My question is when I use exactlly the same model but choose different estimation

Dear All, As you know, glmmADMB package use ML method for estimation. Is it possible to use REML estimation method for zero-inflated Poisson distribution? For ML method, poi_ML <- glmm.admb(los ~ psihigh + trt.mod + trt.high + psihigh*trt.mod + psihigh*trt.high + 1, random = ~1, group="site", family="poisson", data=edcap) summary(poi_ML) How can I control to use REML

Hi ! I try to compare some models obtained from glmmPQL. model1 <- glmmPQL(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4 +I(freq8_4^2), random=~1|num, binomial); model2 <- glmmPQL(y~red*yellow+I(red^2)+I(yellow^2)+densite8+I(densite8^2)+freq8_4 , random=~1|num, binomial); anova(model1, model2) here is the answer : Erreur dans anova.lme(model1, model2) : Objects must

Hi, please help!! I've been trying to fit variogram models using the REML method in the gstat package. Every time the Windows GUI crashes. For example library(gstat) data(meuse) x <- variogram(zinc ~ 1, ~x + y, meuse) v <- vgm(140000, "Sph", 800, nug = 10000) plot(x, model = fit.variogram(x, model = v, fit.method=5)) Other fit methods are non problematic (eg. fit.method=7

I asked a few days ago about the difference in results I saw between the MASS function glmmPQL (due to Venables and Ripley) and the lme function from the package nlme (due to Pinheiro and Bates). When the two tools apply to the same model (gaussian, link=identity, correlation=AR1), I was getting different results and wondered if there was an argument in favor of one or the other. Several

Hi R experts, I am interested on the effects of two dietry compunds on the growth of chicks. Rather than extracting linear growth functions for each chick and using these in an analysis I thought using ReML might provide a neater and better way of doing this. (I have read the pdf vignette("MlmSoftRev") and "Fitting linear mixed models in R" by Douglas Bates but I am not

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 All, I have a question concerning the computation of the value of the Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) function evaluated at a given set of parameter estimates from the Maximum likelihood (ML) value. Following the book of Fitzmaurice, Laird and Ware (2004) "Applied Longitudinal Analysis" pp101, the REML likelihood can be computed by multiplying the ML likleihood by the square

Hi, I'm having some problems regarding the packages lme4 and nlme, more specifically in the denominator degrees of freedom. I used data Orthodont for the two packages. The commands used are below. require(nlme) data(Orthodont) fm1<-lme(distance~age+ Sex, data=Orthodont,random=~1|Subject, method="REML") anova(fm1) numDF DenDF F-value p-value (Intercept) 1

Sorry for the off-topic (non-R) post. Has anyone seen/tried this (from this week's NA-digest)? Andy ------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel Malard <JM.Malard at pnl.gov> Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:31:15 -0700 Subject: ACRE, Parallel Covariance Component Estimation Code A couple of people have asked recently for a copy of the parallel (restricted/residual)