similar to: se.contrast confusion

Dear R-users, I want to fit a linear model with Y as response variable and X a categorical variable (with 4 categories), with the aim of comparing the basal category of X (category=1) with category 4. Unfortunately, there is another categorical variable with 2 categories which interact with x and I have to include it, so my model is s "reg3: Y=x*x3". Using fit.contrast to make the

Hi, perhaps this is a stupid question, but i need some help about Helmert contrasts in the Cox model. I have a survival data frame with an unordered factor `group' with levels 0 ... 5. Calculating the Cox model with Helmert contrasts, i expected that the first coefficient would be the same as if i had used treatment contrasts, but this is not true. I this a error in reasoning, or is it

Hi, I found that using different contrasts (e.g. contr.helmert vs. contr.treatment) will generate different fitted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression using multinom(); while the fitted probabilities from binary logistic regression seem to be the same. Why is that? and for multinomial logisitc regression, what contrast should be used? I guess it's helmert? here is an example

R version 2.10.1 (2009-12-14) Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details. Natural language support but running in an English locale R is a collaborative project with

Hello, I've noticed that all contrast functions, like contr.treatment, contr.poly, etc., take a logical argument called 'contrasts'. The default is TRUE, in which case they do their normal thing of returning a n x n-1 matrix whose columns are linearly-independent of the intercept. If contrasts=FALSE, they instead return an n x n matrix with full rank (usually the identity matrix,

I am using RW 1.2.3. on an IBM PC 300GL. Using the data bp.dat which accompanies Helen Brown and Robin Prescott 1999 Applied Mixed Models in Medicine. Statistics in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA which is also found at www.med.ed.ac.uk/phs/mixed. The data file was opened and initialized with > dat <- read.table("bp.dat") >

Code: > options("contrasts") $contrasts factor ordered "contr.treatment" "contr.poly" I want to change the first entry ONLY, without retyping "contr.poly". How do I do it? I have tried various possibilities and cannot get anything to work. I found out that the response to options("contrasts") has class

Hi all, I am trying to do a ordered probit regression using polr(), replicating a result from SAS. >polr(y ~ x, dat, method='probit') suppose the model is y ~ x, where y is a factor with 3 levels and x is a factor with 5 levels, To get coefficients, SAS by default use the last level as reference, R by default use the first level (correct me if I was wrong), The result I got is a

The man page for se.contrast, when describing the contrast.obj parameter, states that "Multiple contrasts should be specified by a matrix as returned by contrasts." When doing an unbalanced single factor ANOVA, using a contrast.obj as returned by contrasts results in the following error from qr.qty when se.contrast is called: Error in qr.qty(object$qr, contrast) : qr and y must have

Hola compañeros de la lista, qué tal. Los molesto con la siguiente duda: Tengo un experimento con dos factores A y B, cada uno de los cuales tiene los siguientes niveles (que son concentraciones de dos hormonas vegetales aplicadas a plantas): niveles del factor A: 0, 0.2, 0.5, 1 niveles del factor B: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 y mi variable de respuesta es continua, todo dentro del set de datos

Hi, For a n-level factor, I'd like to specify the first contrast and have the remaining n-2 constructed automatically so that the set is orthogonal. I then test the contrasts with summary.lm(anova-object). In S-Plus, the following works: >y.anova <- aov( y ~ C(CO2,c(1,0,-1)) ) >summary.lm(y.anova) In R, it fails with the following error: >levels(CO2) [1]

How to set the nlme() function to return the answer without the intercept parametrization? #========================================================================================= library(nlme) Soybean[1:3, ] (fm1Soy.lis <- nlsList(weight ~ SSlogis(Time, Asym, xmid, scal),                        data = Soybean)) (fm1Soy.nlme <- nlme(fm1Soy.lis)) fm2Soy.nlme <- update(fm1Soy.nlme,

Hi, I need to build a function to generate one column for each level of a factor in the model matrix created on an arbitrary formula (instead of using the available contrasts options such as contr.treatment, contr.SAS, etc). My approach to this was first to use the built-in function for contr.treatment but changing the default value of the contrasts argument to FALSE (I named this function

Hi all, I am using "lm" to fit some anova factor models with interactions. The default setting for my unordered factors is "treatment". I understand the resultant "lm" coefficients for one factors, but when it comes to the interaction term, I got confused. > options()$contrasts unordered ordered "contr.treatment"

In S-Plus, I can obtain polynomial contrasts for an ordered factor with contr.poly(). The function also exists in R, however is limited to factors where the levels are equally spaced. In S-Plus, one can obtain the contrasts for a set of numeric values representing unequally spaced ordered factors. Has anyone implemented this in R? I see that the S-Plus function calls another function (poly.raw())

Dear all, I do not seem to grasp how contrasts are set for ordered factors. Perhaps someone can elighten me? When I work with ordered factors, I would often like to be able to reduce the used polynomial to a simpler one (where possible). Thus, I would like to explicetly code the polynomial but ideally, the intial model (thus, the full polynomial) would be identical to one with an ordered factor.

Hi R people I am using regsubsets() to fit large numbers of models and collect summary statistics in order to perform a Bayesian analysis of multi-way ANOVA with specific prior information. In general the variables have differing numbers of levels >=2. This works well but with variable of more than 2 levels there are naturally some arbitrary decisions about which treatment contrasts to

Dear all, I'm working with Cox-regression, because data could be censored. But in this particular case not. Now I have a simple example: PRO and PRE are (0,1) coded. The response is not normal distributed. We are interested in a model which could describe interaction. But my results are depending strongly in the choose of the contrast option. It is clear that there is some dependence in

Dear R-devel list members, I'd like to suggest a more flexible procedure for generating contrast names. I apologise for a relatively long message -- I want my proposal to be clear. I've never liked the current approach. For example, the names generated by contr.treatment paste factor to level names with no separation between the two; contr.sum simply numbers contrasts (I recall an

Hi all, I have been trying to reproduce an analysis from Douglas Montgomery?s book on design and analysis of experiments. Table 6.10 of example 6.2 on page 246, gives a table as follows: > NPK <- expand.grid(A=mp,B=mp,C=mp,D=mp) > Rate <- c(45,71,48,65,68,60,80,65,43,100,45,104,75,86,70,96) > filtration <- cbind(NPK,Rate) > filtration A B C D Rate 1 - - - - 45 2