I would like to ask for help with my project. My goal is to get ROC curve from existing logistic regression.
First of all, here is what I'm analyzing.
glm.fit <- glm(Severity_Binary ~ Side + State + Timezone + Temperature.F. + Wind_Chill.F. + Humidity... + Pressure.in. + Visibility.mi. + Wind_Direction + Wind_Speed.mph. + Precipitation.in. + Amenity + Bump + Crossing + Give_Way + Junction + No_Exit + Railway + Station + Stop + Traffic_Calming + Traffic_Signal + Sunrise_Sunset , data = train_data, family = binomial)
glm.probs <- predict(glm.fit,type = "response")
glm.probs = predict(glm.fit, newdata = test_data, type = "response")
glm.pred = ifelse(glm.probs > 0.5, "1", "0")
This part works fine, I am able to show a table of prediction and mean result. But here comes the problem for me, I'm using pROC library, but I am open to use anything else which you can help me with. I'm using test_data with approximately 975 rows, but variable proc has only 3 sensitivities/specificities values.
library(pROC)
proc <- roc(test_data$Severity_Binary,glm.probs)
test_data$sens <- proc$sensitivities[1:975]
test_data$spec <- proc$specificities[1:975]
ggplot(test_data, aes(x=spec, y=sens)) + geom_line()
Here´s what I have as a result:
With Warning message:
Removed 972 row(s) containing missing values (geom_path).
As I found out, proc has only 3 values as I said.
You can't (and shouldn't) assign the sensitivity and specificity to the data. They are summary data and exist in a different dimension than your data.
Specifically, these two lines are wrong and make no sense at all:
test_data$sens <- proc$sensitivities[1:975]
test_data$spec <- proc$specificities[1:975]
Instead you must either save them to a new data.frame, or use some of the existing functions like ggroc:
ggroc(proc)
If you consider what the ROC curve does, there is no reason to expect it to have the same dimensions as your dataframe. It provides summary statistics of your model performance (sensitivity, specificity) evaluated on your dataset for different thresholds in your prediction.
Usually you would expect some more nuance on the curve (more than the 3 datapoints at thresholds -Inf, 0.5, Inf). You can look at the distribution of your glm.probs - this ROC curve indicates that all predictions are either 0 or 1, with very little inbetween (hence only one threshold at 0.5 on your curve). [This could also mean that you unintentially used your binary glm.pred for calculating the ROC curve, and not glm.probs as shown in the question (?)]
This seems to be more an issue with your model than with your code - here an example from a random different dataset, using the same steps you took (glm(..., family = binomial, predict(, type = "response"). This produces a ROC curve with 333 steps for ~1300 datapoints.
PS: (Ingore the fact that this is evaluated on training data, the point is the code looks alright up to the point of generating the ROC curve)
m1 <- glm(survived ~ passengerClass + sex + age, data = dftitanic, family = binomial)
myroc <- roc(dftitanic$survived,predict(m1, dftitanic, type = "response"))
plot(myroc)
Related
I am trying to fitting a mixed effects models using lme4 package. Unfortunately I cannot share the data that i am working with. Also i couldn't find a toy data set is relevant to my problem . So here i have showed the steps that i followed so far :
First i plotted the overall trend of the data as follows :
p21 <- ggplot(data = sub_data, aes(x = age_cent, y = y))
p21+ geom_point() + geom_smooth()
Based on this , there seems to be a some nonlinear trend in the data. Hence I tried to fit the quadratic model as follows :
sub_data$age_cent=sub_data$age-mean((sub_data)$age)
sub_data$age_centsqr=(sub_data$age-mean((sub_data)$age))^2
m1= lmer(y ~ 1 + age_cent + age_centsqr +(1 | id) , sub_data, REML = TRUE)
In the above model i only included a random intercept because i don't have enough data to include both random slope and intercept.Then i extracted the predictions of these model at population level as follows :
pred1=predict(m1,re.form=NA)
Next I plotted these predictions along with a smooth quadratic function like this
p21+ geom_point() + geom_smooth(method = "lm", formula = y ~ I(x) + I(x^2)
,col="red")+geom_line(aes(y=pred1,group = id) ,col="blue", lwd = 0.5)
In the above plot , the curve corresponds to predictions are not smooth. Can any one helps me to figure out the reason for that ?
I am doing anything wrong here ?
Update :
As eipi10 pointed out , this may due to fitting different curves for different people.
But when i tried the same thing using a toy data set which is in the lme4 package , i got the same curve for each person as follows :
m1 <- lmer(Reaction ~ 1+I(Days) + (1+ Days| Subject) , data = sleepstudy)
pred1new1=predict(m1,re.form=NA)
p21 <- ggplot(data = sleepstudy, aes(x = Days, y = Reaction))
p21+ geom_point() + geom_smooth()
p21+ geom_point() + geom_smooth()+ geom_line(aes(y=pred1new1,group = Subject) ,col="red", lwd = 0.5)
What may be the reason the for different results ? Is this due to unbalance of the data ?
The data i used collected in 3 time steps and some people didn't have it for all 3 time steps. But the toy data set is a balanced data set.
Thank you
tl;dr use expand.grid() or something like it to generate a balanced/evenly spaced sample for every group (if you have a strongly nonlinear curve you may want to generate a larger/more finely spaced set of x values than in the original data)
You could also take a look at the sjPlot package, which does a lot of this stuff automatically ...
You need both an unbalanced data set and a non-linear (e.g. polynomial) model for the fixed effects to see this effect.
if the model is linear, then you don't notice missing values because the linear interpolation done by geom_line() works perfectly
if the data are balanced then there are no gaps to get weirdly filled by linear interpolation
Generate an example with quadratic effects and an unbalanced data set; fit the model
library(lme4)
set.seed(101)
dd <- expand.grid(id=factor(1:10),x=1:10)
dd$y <- simulate(~poly(x,2)+(poly(x,2)|id),
newdata=dd,
family=gaussian,
newparams=list(beta=c(0,0,0.1),
theta=rep(0.1,6),
sigma=1))[[1]]
## subsample randomly (missing values)
dd <- dd[sort(sample(nrow(dd),size=round(0.7*nrow(dd)))),]
m1 <- lmer(y ~ poly(x,2) + (poly(x,2)|id) , data = dd)
Naive prediction and plot:
dd$pred1 <- predict(m1,re.form=NA)
library(ggplot2)
p11 <- (ggplot(data = dd, aes(x = x, y = y))
+ geom_point() + geom_smooth(method="lm",formula=y~poly(x,2))
)
p11 + geom_line(aes(y=pred1,group = id) ,col="red", lwd = 0.5)
Now generate a balanced data set. This version generates 51 evenly spaced points between the min and max - this will be useful if the original data are unevenly spaced. If you have NA values in your x variable, don't forget na.rm=TRUE ...
pframe <- with(dd,expand.grid(id=levels(id),x=seq(min(x),max(x),length.out=51)
Make predictions, and overlay them on the original plot:
pframe$pred1 <- predict(m1,newdata=pframe,re.form=NA)
p11 + geom_line(data=pframe,aes(y=pred1,group = id) ,col="red", lwd = 0.5)
I want to run a stepwise regression in R to choose the best fit model, my code is attached here:
full.modelfixed <- glm(died_ed ~ age_1 + gender + race + insurance + injury + ais + blunt_pen +
comorbid + iss +min_dist + pop_dens_new + age_mdn + male_pct +
pop_wht_pct + pop_blk_pct + unemp_pct + pov_100x_npct +
urban_pct, data = trauma, family = binomial (link = 'logit'), na.action = na.exclude)
reduced.modelfixed <- stepAIC(full.modelfixed, direction = "backward")
There is a error message said
Error in stepAIC(full.modelfixed, direction = "backward") :
number of rows in use has changed: remove missing values?
Almost every variable in the data has some missing values, so I cannot delete all missing values (data = na.omit(data))
Any idea on how to fix this?
Thanks!!
This should probably be in a stats forum (stats.stackexchange) but briefly there are a number of considerations.
The main one is that when comparing two models they need to be fitted on the same dataset (i.e you need to be able to nest the models within each other).
For examples
glm1 <- glm(Dependent~indep1+indep2+indep3, family = binomial, data = data)
glm2 <- glm(Dependent~indep2+indep2, family = binomial, data = data)
Now imagine that we are missing values of indep3 but not indep1 or indep2.
When we run glm1 we are running it on a smaller dataset - the dataset for which we have the dependent variable and all three independent ones (i.e we exclude any rows where indep3 values are missing).
When we run glm2 the rows missing a value for indep3 are included because those rows do contain dependent, indep1 and indep2 which are the models in the variable.
We can no longer directly compare models as they are fitted on different datasets.
I think broadly you can either
1) Limit to data which is complete
2) If appropriate consider multiple imputation
Hope that helps.
You can use the MICE package to do imputation, then working with the dataset will not give you errors
http://www.statsci.org/data/oz/snails.txt
You can get data from here.
My data is 4*3*3*2 completely randomized design experiment data. I want to model the probability of survival in terms of the stimulus variables.
I tried ANOVA, but I'm not sure whether it's right or not.
Because I want to model the "probability", should I use logistic model??
(I also tried logistic model. But the data shows the sum of 0(Survived) and 1(Deaths). Even though it is not 0 and 1, can I use logistic??)
I want to put "probability" as Y variable.
So I used logit but it's not working.
The program says that y is Inf.
How can I use logit as Y variable in aov?
glm_a <- glm(Deaths ~ Exposure + Rel.Hum + Temp + Species, data = data,
family = binomial)
prob <- Deaths / 20
logitt <- log(prob / (1 - prob))
logmodel <- lm(logitt ~ data$Species + data$Exposure + data$Rel.Hum + data$Temp)
summary(logmodel)
A <- factor(data$Species, levels = c("A", "B"), labels = c(-1, 1))
glm_a <- glm(Y ~ data$Species * data$Exposure * data$Rel.Hum * data$Temp,
data=data, family = binomial)
summary(glm_a)
help("glm") should direct you to help("family"), which reveals the following
For the binomial and quasibinomial families the response can be specified in one of three ways:
As a factor: ‘success’ is interpreted as the factor not having the first level (and hence usually of having the second level).
As a numerical vector with values between 0 and 1, interpreted as the proportion of successful cases (with the total number of cases given by the weights).
As a two-column integer matrix: the first column gives the number of successes and the second the number of failures.
So for the question "How can I make logistic model with this data?", we can go with route #3 quite easily:
data <- read.table("http://www.statsci.org/data/oz/snails.txt", header = TRUE)
glm_a <- glm(cbind(Deaths, N - Deaths) ~ Species * Exposure * Rel.Hum * Temp,
data = data, family = binomial)
summary(glm_a)
# [output omitted]
As for the question "I tried ANOVA, but I'm not sure whether it's right or not. Because I want to model the "probability", should I use logistic model?", it's better to ask on Cross Validated
I am using Afrobarometer survey data using 2 rounds of data for 10 countries. My DV is a binary 0-1 variable. I need to use logistic regression, fixed-effects, clustered standard errors (at country), and weighted survey data. A variable for the weights already exists in the dataframe.
I've been looking at help files for the following packages: clogit, glm, pglm, glm2, zelig, bife , etc. Typical errors include: can't add weights, can't do fixed effects, cant do either or etc.
#Glm
t3c1.fixed <- glm(formula = ethnic ~ elec_prox +
elec_comp + round + country, data=afb,
weights = afb$survey_weight,
index c("country", "round"),
family=binomial(link='logit'))
#clogit
t3c1.fixed2 <- clogit(formula = ethnic ~ elec_prox +
elec_comp + round + country, data=afb,
weights = afb$survey_weight,
method=c("within"))
#bife attempt
library(bife)
t3c1.fixed3 <- bife(ethnic ~ elec_prox + elec_comp + round +
country, model = logit,data=afb,
weights = afb$survey_weight,
bias_corr = "ana")
I either get error messages or the code doesn't include one of the conditions I need to include, so I can't use them. In Stata it appears this process is very simple, but in R it seems rather tedious. Any help would be appreciated!
I would check out the survey package which provides everything for which you are asking. The first step is to create the survey object, specify the survey weights and then you are off to the races.
library(survey)
my_survey <- svydesign(ids= ~1, strata = ~country, wts = ~wts, data = your_data)
# Then you can use the survey glm to do what you want via
svy_fit <- svy_glm(ethnic ~ elec_prox +
elec_comp + round + country, data = my_survey, family = binomial())
Or at least I would go down this path given you are using survey data.
I am a complete newbie to R.
I have the following logit equation I am estimating:
allAM <- glm (AM ~ VS + Prom + LS_Exp + Sex + Age + Age2 + Jpart + X2004LS + X2009LS + X2014LS + factor(State), family = binomial(link = "logit"), data = mydata)
AM is a standard binary (happened/didn’t happen). The three “X****LS” variables are dummies indicating different sessions of congress and “factor(State)” is used to generate fixed effects/dummies for each state.
VS is the key independent variable of interest and I want to generate the predicated probability that AM=1 for each value of VS between 0 and 60, holding everything else at its mean.
I am running into trouble, however, generating and plotting the predicted probabilities because “State” is a factor. I want to be able to show the average effects, not 50 different charts/effects for each state.
Per (Hanmer and Kalkan 2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.x/abstract I was advised to do the following to plot the predicted probabilities:
pred.seq <- seq(from=0, to=60, by=0.01)
pred.out <- c()
for(i in 1:length(pred.seq)){
mydata.c <- mydata
mydata.c$VS <- pred.seq[i]
pred.out[i] <- mean(predict(allAM, newdata=mydata.c, type="response"))
}
plot(pred.out ~ pred.seq, type="l")
This approach seems to work, though I don’t really understand it.
I want to add the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals to the plot, but when I attempt to do it by hand the way I know how:
lower <- pred.out$fit - (1.96*pred.out$se.fit)
upper <- pred.out$fit + (1.96*pred.out$se.fit)
I get the following error:
Error in pred.outfit:fit: operator is invalid for atomic vectors
Can anyone advise how I can plot the confidence intervals and how I can specify different levels of VS so that I can report some specific predicted probabilities?