I would like to create a model to understand how habitat type affects the abundance of bats found, however I am struggling to understand which terms I should include. I wish to use lme4 to carry out a glmm model, I have chosen glmm as the distribution is poisson - you can't have half a bat, and also distribution is left skewed - lots of single bats.
My dataset is very big and is comprised of abundance counts recorded by an individual on a bat survey (bat survey number is not included as it's public data). My data set includes abundance, year, month, day, environmental variables (temp, humidity, etc.), recorded_habitat, surrounding_habitat, latitude and longitude, and is structured like the set shown below. P.S Occurrence is an anonymous recording made by an observer at a set location, at a location a number of bats will be recorded - it's not relevant as it's from a greater dataset.
occurrence
abundance
latitude
longitude
year
month
day
(environmental variables
3456
45
53.56
3.45
2000
5
3
34.6
surrounding_hab
recorded_hab
A
B
Recorded habitat and surrounding habitat range in letters (A-I) corresponding to a habitat type. Also, the table is split as it wouldn't fit in the box.
These models shown below are the models I think are a good choice.
rhab1 <- glmer(individual_count ~ recorded_hab + (1|year) + latitude + longitude + sun_duration2, family = poisson, data = BLE)
summary(rhab1)
rhab2 <- glmer(individual_count ~ surrounding_hab + (1|year) + latitude + longitude + sun_duration2, family = poisson, data = BLE)
summary(rhab2)
I'll now explain my questions in regards to the models I have chosen, with my current thinking/justification.
Firstly, I am confused about the mix of categorical and numeric variables, is it wise to include the environmental variables as they are numeric? My current thinking is scaling the environmental variables allowed the model to converge so including them is okay?
Secondly, I am confused about the mix of spatial and temporal variables, primarily if I should include temporal variables as the predictor is a temporal variable. I'd like to include year as a random variable as bat populations from one year directly affect bat populations the next year, and also latitude and longitude, does this seem wise?
I am also unsure if latitude and longitude should be random? The confusion arises because latitude and longitude do have some effect on the land use.
Additionally, is it wise to include recorded_habitat and surrounding_habitat in the same model? When I have tried this is produces a massive output with a huge correlation matrix, so I'm thinking I should run two models (year ~ recorded_hab) and (year ~ surrounding_hab) then discuss them separately - hence the two models.
Sorry this question is so broad! Any help or thinking is appreciated - including data restructuring or model term choice. I'm also new to stack overflow so please do advise on question lay out/rules etc if there are glaringly obvious mistakes.
Related
I have a complicated data set which was made by a multistage stratified cluster design. I had originally analysed this using glm, however now realise that I have to use svyglm. I'm not quite sure about how is best to model the data utilising svyglm. I was wondering if anyone could help shed some light.
I am attempting to see the effect that a variety of covariates taken at time 1 have on a binary outcome taken at time 2.
The sampling strategy was as follows: state -> urban/rural -> district -> subdistrict -> village. Within each village, individuals were randomly selected, with each of these having an id (uniqid).
I have a variable in the df for each of these stages of the sampling strategy. I also have the following variables: outcome, age, sex, income, marital_status, urban_or_rural_area, uniqid, weights. The formula that I want for my regression equation is outcome ~ age + sex + income + marital_status + urban_or_rural_area . Weights are coded by the weights variable. I had set the family to binomial(link = logit).
If anyone has any idea how such an approach could be coded in R with svyglm I would be most appreciative. I'm quite confused as to what should be inputted as ID, fpc and nest. Do I have to specify all levels of the stratified design or just some?
Any direction, or resources which explain this well would be massively appreciated.
You don't really give enough information about the design: which of the geographical units are strata and which are clusters. For example, my guess is that you sample both urban and rural in all states, and you don't sample all villages, but I don't know whether you sample all districts or subdistricts. I also don't know whether your overall sampling fraction is large or small (so whether the with-replacement approximation is ok)
Let's pretend you sample just some districts, so districts are your Primary Sampling Units, and that the overall sampling fraction of people is small. The design command is
your_design <- svydesign(id=~district, weights=~weights,
strata=~interaction(state, urban_rural,drop=TRUE),
data=your_data_frame)
That is, the strata are combinations of state and urban/rural and any combinations that aren't in your data set don't exist in the population (maybe some states are all-rural or all-urban). Within each stratum you have districts, and only some of these appear in the sample. In your geographical hierarchy, districts are then the first level that is sampled rather than exhaustively enumerated.
You don't need fpc unless you want to specify the full multistage design without replacement.
The nest option is not about how the survey was done but is about how variables are coded. The US National Center for Health Statistics (bless their hearts) set up a lot of designs that have many strata and two primary sampling units per stratum. They call these primary sampling units 1 and 2; that is, they reuse the names 1 and 2 in every stratum. The svydesign function is set up to expect different sampling unit names in different strata, and to verify that each sampling unit name appears in just one stratum, as a check against data errors. This check has to be disabled for NCHS surveys and perhaps some others that also reuse sampling unit names. You can always leave out the nest option at first; svydesign will tell you if it might be needed.
Finally, the models:
svyglm(outcome ~ age + sex + income + marital_status + urban_or_rural_area,
design=your_design, family=quasibinomial)
Using binomial or quasibinomial will give identical answers, but using binomial will give you a harmless warning about non-integer weights. If you use quasibinomial, the harmless warning is suppressed.
I have a set of data that came from a psychological experiment where subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions and their wellbeing w measured on six different occasions. The exact day of measurement on each occasion differs slightly from subject to subject. The first measurement occasion for all subjects is day zero.
I analyse this with lmer :
model.a <- lmer(w ~ day * treatment + (day | subject),
REML=FALSE,
data=exper.data)
Following a simple visual inspection of the change-trajectories of subjects, I'd now like to include (and examine the effect of including) the possibility that the slope of the line for each subject changes at a point mid-way between measurement occasion 3 and 4.
I'm familiar with modeling the alteration in slope by including an additional time-variable in the lmer specification. The approach is described in chapter 6 ('Modeling non-linear change') of the book Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis by Singer and Willett (2005). Following their advice, for each measurement, for each subject, there is now an additional variable called latter.day. For measurements up to measurement 3, the value of latter.day is zero; for later measurements, latter.day encodes the number of days after day 40 (which is the point at which I'd like to include the possible slope-change).
What I cannot see is how to adjust the lmer coding of the examples in the Singer and Willett cases to suit my own problem ... which includes the same point-of-slope-change for all subjects as well as a between-subjects factor (treatment). I'd appreciate help on how to write the specification for lmer.
I am a biologist working in aquaculture nutrition research and until recently I haven't paid much attention to the power of statistics. The usual method of analysis had been to run ANOVA on final weights of animals given various treatments and boom, you have a result. I have tried to improve my results by designing an experiment that could track individuals growth over time but I am having a really hard time trying to understand which model to use for the data I have.
For simplified explanation of my experiment: I have 900 abalone/snails which were sourced from a single cohort (spawned/born at the same time). I have individually marked each abalone (id) and recorded a length and weight at Time 0. The animals were then randomly assigned 1 of 6 treatment diets (n=30 abalone per treatment) each replicated n=5 times (n=150 abalone / replicate). Each replicate looks like a randomized block design where each treatment is only replicate once within each block and each is assigned to independent tank with n=30 abalone/tank (n treatment). Abalone were fed a known amount of feed for 90 days before being weighed and measured again (Time 1). They are back in their homes for another 90 days before the concluding the experiment.
From my understanding:
fixed effects - Time, Treatment
nested random effects - replicate, id
My raw data entered is in Long format with each row being a unique animal and columns for Time (0 or 1), Replicate (1-5), Treatment (1-6), Sex (M or F) Animal ID (1-900), Length (mm), Weight (g), Condition Factor (Weight/Length^2.99*5655)
I have used columns from my raw data and converted them to factors and vectors before using the new variables to create a data frame.
id<-as.factor(data.long[,5])
time<-as.factor(data.long[,1])
replicate<-as.factor(data.long[,2])
treatment<-data.long[,3]
weight<-as.vector(data.long[,7])
length<-as.vector(data.long[,6])
cf<-as.vector(data.long[,10])
My data frame is currently in the following structure:
df1<-data.frame(time,replicate,treatment,id,weight,length,cf)
I am struggling to understand how to nest my individual abalone within replicates. I can convert the weight data to change from initial but I think the package nlme already accounts this change when coded correctly. I could also create another measure of Specific Growth Rate for each animal at Time 1 but this would not allow the Time factor to be used.
lme(weight ~ time*treatment, random=~1 | id, method="ML", data=df1))
I would like to structure a mixed effects model so that my code takes into account the individual animal variability to detect statistical differences in their weight at Time 1 between treatments.
I am fairly new to the R world. I need some help with correct syntax for running a negative binomial regression/zero-inflation negative binomial regression on some data.
I am trying to run a regression that looks at how race/ethnicity influences the number of summer meal sites in a census tract.
I have parsed all the necessary data into one "MASTER.csv" file and the format is as follows:
Column headers: GEO ID - number of Summer Meal Sites - Census Tract Name - Total Population - White - Black - Indian - Asian - Other
So an example row would look like: 48001950100 - 4 - Census Tract 9501, Anderson County, Texas - 5477 - 4400 - 859 - 14 - 21 - 0
And so on, I have a total of 5266 rows each in the same format. Race/ethnicity is reported as a count of how many individuals in that certain census tract are of a respective race/ethnicity.
I am using a zero-inflation negative binomial model to account for the dependent variable being a "count", and therefore susceptible to skewed distributions.
My dependent variable is the number of summer meal sites in each census tract. (ex. in this case, the second column, 4).
My independent variable would be the race/ethnicities. Black, White etc.. I also need to set White as my omitted ( or reference) variable since I am running a regression on nominal variables.
How would I go about doing this? Would it look similar to the code posted below?
require(MASS)
require(pscl)
zeroinfl(formula = MASTER$num_summer_meal_sites ~ .| MASTER$White + MASTER$Black + MASTER$Other, data = "MASTER", dist = "negbin")
Would this do what I need? Also, I am unclear as to how I should set "White" as the reference/omitted variable.
As pointed out above, you have a few problems with your formula. It probably should be re-written as
zeroinfl(num_summer_meal_sites ~ Black + Indian + Asian + Other,
data = MASTER, dist = "negbin")
Here we specify the data= parameter with the actual data.frame variable, not a character indicating the name of the variable. This allows you to use the names of the columns without having to prefix them all with a data.frame name; it will use data= first.
Also, rather than using "." to indicate all variables, it would be useful in this case to explicitly list the covariates you want since some seem like they may be in appropriate for regression.
And as pointed out above, it's best not to include correlated variables in a regression model. So leaving out White will help to prevent that. Since you have summary data, you don't really have a reference category like you would if you had individual data.
zeroinfl uses the | to delimit the regressors for the poisson part and the zero inflated part. Did you only want to model the inflation with the race variables? If so, your formulation was appropriate.
I'm trying to use R to conduct Poisson regression on some data that I have. The current structure of the data is as follows:
Data is stratified based on three occupations. There are four levels of income in the data. Within each stratum, for each level of income there is
the number of workplace accidents that have occurred, and
the total man months observed.
Here's an example of the setup. The number in parentheses is the total man months observed and the number not in parentheses is the number of workplace accidents.
My question is how do I set up this data and perform a Poisson regression on the effect of income level on the occurrence of workplace accidents? Ideally I would like to adjust for occupation and find out the effect of only income, but as a starting point, I'm not sure how to set it up as a Poisson regression problem at all. I thought about doing something like dividing the number of injuries by the months of observation, but then that gives non-integer values so I assume that's not the right thing to do.
To reiterate, predictor: income level; response variable: workplace accidents.
BTW, it would be very easy to separate the parentheses numbers and put them into their own column, if that would make sense to do.
I'd really appreciate any suggestions on how to set this up. I am sure other statisticians are working with similarly structured data and might like to gain some insight as well. Thanks so much!
#thelatemail might be correct in think this to be better suited for stats.stackexchange.com but here is some R code. That data is in wide format and you need to re-structure it to long format. (And you will not want to include the totals columns. After converting the first four columns to a long format where you had 'occupation' and 'level' as factor-class variables, and accident 'counts' and exposure 'months' as numeric columns, you could use this call to glm.
fit <- glm( counts ~ level + occup + offset(log(months)), data=dfrm, family="poisson")
The offset needs to be log()-ed to agree with the logged counts created by the default link function for the poisson-family.
(You cannot really expect us to redo that data entry task, now can you?)