similar to: predict function problem for glmmPQL

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

Gracias Emilio y Jorge. Tengo que explicarlo mejor. Mostrando a una audiencia cómo hacer un tipo de análisis, se hace un loop (abajo) que analiza un mapa por regiones longitudinales. Tal y como está el script, print(i) te indica la longitud por la que va (de 10º en 10º) pero me gustaría que en vez de eso te fuese representando una línea vertical sobre el mapa, que he representado previamente con

Dear R people, I want to use the tune.nnet function of e1071 package to tune nnet . I am unable to understand the parameters of tune.nnet from the e1071 pdf document. I have performed nnet on a traindata and want to test it for class prediction with a testdata. I want to know the values of size,decay,range etc. parameters for which the prediction of testdata is best. Can anyone please tell me

Dear all, for a cross-validation I have to use predict.glmmPQL() , where the formula of the corresponding glmmPQL call is not given explicitly, but constructed using as.formula. However, this does not work as expected: x1<-rnorm(100); x2<-rbinom(100,3,0.5); y<-rpois(100,2) mydata<-data.frame(x1,x2,y) library(MASS) # works as expected model1<-glmmPQL(y~x1, ~1 | factor(x2),

Hello I believe that I'm getting very close in my modeling application. I've come across a challenge that I am unable to solve and would really appreciate the group's opinion. I've been using the val.prob function from the Design library (Thanks Frank!!) to both evaluate and visualize my model. From the scores and graph, it appears as my model is very accurate in

Is the labeling/naming of levels in the documentation for the predict.glmmPQL function "backwards"? The documentation states "Level values increase from outermost to innermost grouping, with level zero corresponding to the population predictions". Taking the sample in the documentation: fit <- glmmPQL(y ~ trt + I(week > 2), random = ~1 | ID, family =

I'm a bit puzzled by how to write out additive random effects in glmmPQL. In my situation, I have a factorial design on two (categorical) random factors, A and B. At each combination, I have a binary response, y, and two binary fixed covariates, C and D. If everything were fixed, I would use glm(y ~ A + B + C + D, family = binomial) My first thought was to use glmmPQL(y ~ A + B, random

Hello, I am using the R function glmmPQL to fit a logistic GLMM, with weights. I am finding that I get fairly different parameter estimates in glmmPQL from fitting the full dataset (with no "weight" statement) and an equivalent, shorter dataset with the weights statement. I am using the weights statement in the 'glmmPQL' function exactly as in the 'glm' function. I

Dear R Community, I?m relatively new in the field of R and I hope someone of you can help me to solve my nerv-racking problem. For my Master thesis I collected some behavioral data of fish using acoustic telemetry. The aim of the study is to compare two different groups of fish (coded as 0 and 1 which should be the dependent variable) based on their swimming activity, habitat choice, etc.

I fit the following model using glmmPQL from MASS: fit.glmmPQL <- glmmPQL(ifelse(class=="Disease",1,0)~age+x1+x2,random=~1|subject,family=binomial) summary(fit.glmmPQL) The response is paired (pairing denoted by subject), although some subjects only have one response. Also, there is a perfect positive correlation between the paired responses. x1 and x2 can and do differ within each

Dear listers, glmmPQL (package MASS) is given to work by repeated call to lme. In the classical outputs glmmPQL the Variance Structure is given as " fixed weights, Formula: ~invwt". The script shows that the function varFixed() is used, though the place where 'invwt' is defined remains unclear to me. I wonder if there is an easy way to specify another variance

Hello All, I have a question regarding how glmmPQL should be specified. Which of these two is correct? summary(fm.3 <- glmmPQL(cbind(response, 100 - response) ~ expt, data = data.1, random = ~ 1 | subject, family = binomial)) summary(fm.4 <- glmmPQL(response ~ expt, data = data.2, random = ~ 1 | subject, family =

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 all! I hope somebody can help me solve some doubts which must be very basic, but I haven't been able to solve by myself. The first one, is how to assess for overdispersion in GlmmPQL when fitting binomial or poisson errors. The second one is whether GlmmPQL can compare models with different fixed effects. The third doubt, regards the way I should arrange my data in a GlmmPQL with

[I think I've seen this reported before but can't locate it any more. I believe this oddity (glitch? feature?) is behind a query that Jean-Baptiste Ferdy asked a year ago <http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/Rhelp08/2008-October/176449.html>] It appears that glmmPQL looks in the global workspace, not within the data frame specified by the "data" argument, for the variables

Buenos días ¿sabéis si hay alguna forma de añadir una recta vertical sobre un mapa hecho previamente con ggplot? Lo que hago ahora es cargar nuevamente el mapa con la línea añadida (una serie de líneas añadidas secuencialmente en un loop) pero me gustaría que añadiese las líneas sin cargar nuevamente el mapa. Gracias, Manuel [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

hello all, i'm an R newbie struggling a bit with the glmmPQL function (from the nlme pack). i think i've managed to run the model successfully, but can't seem to plot the resulting function. plot(glmmPQL(...)) plots the residuals rather than the model... i know this should be basic, but i can't seem to figure it out. many thanks in advance. j -- View this message in context:

Dear R-users, I have conducted an experiment with a 2*2*2 factorial within-subjects design. All factors are binary and the dependent measure is a frequency of successes between 0 and 4. Treating this as a normally distributed variable, I would perform a repeated-measures ANOVA as follows: > aov(y ~ A*B*C + Error(subj/(A+B+C))) but since the distribution of the dependent measure is clearly

Dear all, I have two questions concerning model simplification in GlmmPQL, for for random and fixed effects: 1. Fixed effects: I don't know if I can simply specify anova(model) and trust the table that comes up with the p value for each variable in the fixed effects formula. I have read that the only way to test for fixed effects is to do approximate wald tests based on the standard errors

I have a longitudinal data analysis project. There are 10 observations on each of 15 units, and I'm estimating this with randomly varying intercepts along with an AR1 correction for the error terms within units. There is no correlation across units. Blundering around in R for a long time, I found that for linear/gaussian models, I can use either the MASS method glmmPQL (thanks to