I have performed a meta-regression following the example found in here.
This is the code that I'm using adapted to my dataset:
fit meta-regression model to test for subgroup differences
resMeta <- rma(xi=nphy, ti=ni, mods = ~ pop, data=metaAAS)
'metaAAS' holds the data from a csv file, and 'pop' is the moderator.
The problem is that 'pop' has 4 levels, described as 0,1,2 and 3, and the output for the test of moderators (QM) is showing only one degree of freedom, instead of 3 (number of levels - 1):
Test of Moderators (coefficient 2):
QM(df = 1) = 8.7150, p-val = 0.0032
What am I doing wrong?
Thank you!
Use
resMeta <- rma(measure="IR", xi=nphy, ti=ni, mods = ~ factor(pop), data=metaAAS)
or
resMeta <- rma(measure="IR", xi=nphy, ti=ni, mods = ~ 0 + factor(pop), data=metaAAS)
depending on how you want to parameterize the model. See https://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/tips:models_with_or_without_intercept for a discussion of the difference.
Related
I'm dealing with problems of three parts that I can solve separately, but now I need to solve them together:
extremely skewed, over-dispersed dependent count variable (the number of incidents while doing something),
necessity to include random effects,
lots of missing values -> multiple imputation -> 10 imputed datasets.
To solve the first two parts, I chose a quasi-Poisson mixed-effect model. Since stats::glm isn't able to include random effects properly (or I haven't figured it out) and lme4::glmer doesn't support the quasi-families, I worked with glmer(family = "poisson") and then adjusted the std. errors, z statistics and p-values as recommended here and discussed here. So I basically turn Poisson mixed-effect regression into quasi-Poisson mixed-effect regression "by hand".
This is all good with one dataset. But I have 10 of them.
I roughly understand the procedure of analyzing multiple imputed datasets – 1. imputation, 2. model fitting, 3. pooling results (I'm using mice library). I can do these steps for a Poisson regression but not for a quasi-Poisson mixed-effect regression. Is it even possible to A) pool across models based on a quasi-distribution, B) get residuals from a pooled object (class "mipo")? I'm not sure. Also I'm not sure how to understand the pooled results for mixed models (I miss random effects in the pooled output; although I've found this page which I'm currently trying to go through).
Can I get some help, please? Any suggestions on how to complete the analysis (addressing all three issues above) would be highly appreciated.
Example of data is here (repre_d_v1 and repre_all_data are stored in there) and below is a crucial part of my code.
library(dplyr); library(tidyr); library(tidyverse); library(lme4); library(broom.mixed); library(mice)
# please download "qP_data.RData" from the last link above and load them
## ===========================================================================================
# quasi-Poisson mixed model from single data set (this is OK)
# first run Poisson regression on df "repre_d_v1", then turn it into quasi-Poisson
modelSingle = glmer(Y ~ Gender + Age + Xi + Age:Xi + (1|Country) + (1|Participant_ID),
family = "poisson",
data = repre_d_v1)
# I know there are some warnings but it's because I share only a modified subset of data with you (:
printCoefmat(coef(summary(modelSingle))) # unadjusted coefficient table
# define quasi-likelihood adjustment function
quasi_table = function(model, ctab = coef(summary(model))) {
phi = sum(residuals(model, type = "pearson")^2) / df.residual(model)
qctab = within(as.data.frame(ctab),
{`Std. Error` = `Std. Error`*sqrt(phi)
`z value` = Estimate/`Std. Error`
`Pr(>|z|)` = 2*pnorm(abs(`z value`), lower.tail = FALSE)
})
return(qctab)
}
printCoefmat(quasi_table(modelSingle)) # done, makes sense
## ===========================================================================================
# now let's work with more than one data set
# object "repre_all_data" of class "mids" contains 10 imputed data sets
# fit model using with() function, then pool()
modelMultiple = with(data = repre_all_data,
expr = glmer(Y ~ Gender + Age + Xi + Age:Xi + (1|Country) + (1|Participant_ID),
family = "poisson"))
summary(pool(modelMultiple)) # class "mipo" ("mipo.summary")
# this has quite similar structure as coef(summary(someGLM))
# but I don't see where are the random effects?
# and more importantly, I wanted a quasi-Poisson model, not just Poisson model...
# ...but here it is not possible to use quasi_table function (defined earlier)...
# ...and that's because I can't compute "phi"
This seems reasonable, with the caveat that I'm only thinking about the computation, not whether this makes statistical sense. What I'm doing here is computing the dispersion for each of the individual fits and then applying it to the summary table, using a variant of the machinery that you posted above.
## compute dispersion values
phivec <- vapply(modelMultiple$analyses,
function(model) sum(residuals(model, type = "pearson")^2) / df.residual(model),
FUN.VALUE = numeric(1))
phi_mean <- mean(phivec)
ss <- summary(pool(modelMultiple)) # class "mipo" ("mipo.summary")
## adjust
qctab <- within(as.data.frame(ss),
{ std.error <- std.error*sqrt(phi_mean)
statistic <- estimate/std.error
p.value <- 2*pnorm(abs(statistic), lower.tail = FALSE)
})
The results look weird (dispersion < 1, all model results identical), but I'm assuming that's because you gave us a weird subset as a reproducible example ...
I have an R coding question.
This is my first time asking a question here, so apologies if I am unclear or do something wrong.
I am trying to use a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with Poisson error family to test for any significant effect on a count response variable by three separate dichotomous variables (AGE = ADULT or JUVENILE, SEX = MALE or FEMALE and MEDICATION = NEW or OLD) and an interaction between AGE and MEDICATION (AGE:MEDICATION).
There is some dependency in my data in that the data was collected from a total of 22 different sites (coded as SITE vector with 33 distinct levels), and the data was collected over a total of 21 different years (coded as YEAR vector with 21 distinct levels, and treated as a categorical variable). Unfortunately, every SITE was not sampled for each YEAR, with some being sampled for a greater number of years than others.
The data is also quite sparse, in that I do not have a great number of measurements of the response variable (coded as COUNT and an integer vector) per SITE per YEAR.
My Poisson GLMM is constructed using the following code:
model <- glmer(data = mydata,
family = poisson(link = "log"),
formula = COUNT ~ SEX + SEX:MEDICATION + AGE + AGE:SEX + MEDICATION + AGE:MEDICATION + (1|SITE/YEAR),
offset = log(COUNT.SAMPLE.SIZE),
nAGQ = 0)
In order to try and obtain more reliable estimates for the fixed effect coefficients (particularly given the sparse nature of my data), I am trying to obtain 95% confidence intervals for the fixed effect coefficients through non-parametric bootstrapping.
I have come across the "glmmboot" package which can be used to conduct non-parametric bootstrapping of GLMMs, however when I try to run the non-parametric bootstrapping using the following code:
library(glmmboot)
bootstrap_model(base_model = model,
base_data = mydata,
resamples = 1000)
When I run this code, I receive the following message:
Performing case resampling (no random effects)
Naturally, though, my model does have random effects, namely (1|SITE/YEAR).
If I try to tell the function to resample from a specific block, by adding in the "reample_specific_blocks" argument, i.e.:
library(glmmboot)
bootstrap_model(base_model = model,
base_data = mydata,
resamples = 1000,
resample_specific_blocks = "YEAR")
Then I get the following error message:
Performing block resampling, over SITE
Error: Invalid grouping factor specification, YEAR:SITE
I get a similar error message if I try set 'resample_specific_blocks' to "SITE".
If I then try to set 'resample_specific_blocks' to "SITE:YEAR" or "SITE/YEAR" I get the following error message:
Error in bootstrap_model(base_model = model, base_data = mydata, resamples = 1000, :
No random columns from formula found in resample_specific_blocks
I have tried explicitly nesting YEAR within SITE and then adapting the model accordingly using the code:
mydata <- within(mydata, SAMPLE <- factor(SITE:YEAR))
model.refit <- glmer(data = mydata,
family = poisson(link = "log"),
formula = COUNT ~ SEX + AGE + MEDICATION + AGE:MEDICATION + (1|SITE) + (1|SAMPLE),
offset = log(COUNT.SAMPLE.SIZE),
nAGQ = 0)
bootstrap_model(base_model = model.refit,
base_data = mydata,
resamples = 1000,
resample_specific_blocks = "SAMPLE")
But unfortunately I just get this error message:
Error: Invalid grouping factor specification, SITE
The same error message comes up if I set resample_specific_blocks argument to SITE, or if I just remove the resample_specific_blocks argument.
I believe that the case_bootstrap() function found in the lmeresampler package could potentially be another option, but when I look into the help for it it looks like I would need to create a function and I unfortunately have no experience with creating my own functions within R.
If anyone has any suggestions on how I can get the bootstrap_model() function in the glmmboot package to recognise the random effects in my model/dataframe, or any suggestions for alternative methods on conducting non-parametric bootstrapping to create 95% confidence intervals for the coefficients of the fixed effects in my model, it would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks in advance, and for reading such a lengthy question!
For reference, I include links to the RDocumentation and GitHub for the glmmboot package:
https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/glmmboot/versions/0.6.0
https://github.com/ColmanHumphrey/glmmboot
The following is code that will allow for creation of a reproducible example using the data set from lme4::grouseticks
#Load in required packages
library(tidyverse)
library(lme4)
library(glmmboot)
library(psych)
#Load in the grouseticks dataframe
data("grouseticks")
tibble(grouseticks)
#Create dummy vectors for SEX, AGE and MEDICATION
set.seed(1)
SEX <-sample(1:2, size = 403, replace = TRUE)
SEX <- as.factor(ifelse(SEX == 1, "MALE", "FEMALE"))
set.seed(2)
AGE <- sample(1:2, size = 403, replace = TRUE)
AGE <- as.factor(ifelse(AGE == 1, "ADULT", "JUVENILE"))
set.seed(3)
MEDICATION <- sample(1:2, size = 403, replace = TRUE)
MEDICATION <- as.factor(ifelse(MEDICATION == 1, "OLD", "NEW"))
grouseticks$SEX <- SEX
grouseticks$AGE <- AGE
grouseticks$MEDICATION <- MEDICATION
#Use the INDEX vector to create a vector of sample sizes per LOCATION
#per YEAR
grouseticks$INDEX <- 1
sample.sizes <- grouseticks %>%
group_by(LOCATION, YEAR) %>%
summarise(SAMPLE.SIZE = sum(INDEX))
#Combine the dataframes together into the dataframe to be used in the
#model
mydata$SAMPLE.SIZE <- as.integer(mydata$SAMPLE.SIZE)
#Create the Poisson GLMM model
model <- glmer(data = mydata,
family = poisson(link = "log"),
formula = TICKS ~ SEX + SEX + AGE + MEDICATION + AGE:MEDICATION + (1|LOCATION/YEAR),
nAGQ = 0)
#Attempt non-parametric bootstrapping on the model to get 95%
#confidence intervals for the coefficients of the fixed effects
set.seed(1)
Model.bootstrap <- bootstrap_model(base_model = model,
base_data = mydata,
resamples = 1000)
Model.bootstrap
I am a rather new user of lavaan and have been trying to build a moderator model with a continuous moderator and an interaction term with a latent variable. I would like to hear your feedback on my code and especially whether my approach seems appropriate regarding adding the interaction term afterwards (as it requires saving the latent variable in the data frame). Just to give a short description of my study: I investigate the relationship between stress and burnout, and whether social support moderates this association. Unfortunately, I don’t have the actual data yet, so I cannot give information on the possible warning/error messages.
#Creating the centered moderator variable SSMCOVID.c
Dataset$SSMCOVID.c <- scale(Dataset$SSMCOVID, scale = FALSE)
#Setting up the measurement model
RQ3 <- '
#Creating the independent TsM variable:
TsM =~ 1*SsM3mo + 1*SsM12mo + 1*SsM4y + 1*SsM4.5y
# Stress-burnout (independent-dependent):
PBAMCOVID ~ b1*TsM
#Support-burnout (moderator-dependent):
PBAMCOVID ~ b2*SSMCOVID.c '
fit.3 <- sem(RQ3, data = Dataset, estimator = 'MLR', missing = 'ML')
summary(fit.3, fit.measures=TRUE, standardized=TRUE)
#Extracting the predicted values of the model and adding them to the dataframe
data <- data.frame(Dataset, predict(fit.3))
#Creating a new variable with the interaction (note: dplyr package needed!)
data <- data %>%
mutate(TsM_x_SSMCOVID.c = TsM * SSMCOVID.c)
#Testing the predefined interaction (moderation):
Moderation <- ' PBAMCOVID ~ b3*TsM_x_SSMCOVID.c '
fit.Mod <- sem(Moderation, data = data, estimator = 'MLR', missing = 'ML')
summary(fit.Mod, fit.measures=TRUE, standardized=TRUE)
Since you did not provide actual data, I will produce an example using the HolzingerSwineford1939 data frame. The library semTools has a function to make products of indicators using no centering, mean centering, double-mean centering, or residual centering:
df_mod <- indProd(data = HolzingerSwineford1939, #create a new data.frame with the interaction indicators
var1 = paste0("x",c(1:3)), #interaction indicators from the first latent
var2 = paste0("x",c(4:6)), #interaction indicators from the second latent
match = T, #use match-paired approach (it produces the product of the first indicators of each variable, the product of the second indicator of each latent variable...
meanC = T, # mean centering the main effect indicator before making the products
residualC = T, #residual centering the products by the main effect indicators
doubleMC = T) #centering the resulting products
head(df_mod[,(ncol(df_mod)-2):ncol(df_mod)]) #check the last three columns of the new data.frame
model_latent_mod <- "
latent_mod =~
x1.x4+
x2.x5+
x3.x6"
fit_lat_mod <- cfa(model = model_latent_mod, data = df_mod) #run your latent interaction measurement model
summary(object = fit_lat_mod, std=T, fit.m=T) #check the summary
Then you just add this measurement model to your structural model. This approach is useful to produce interaction among latent variables, which I believe should be your case.
If you want interaction between a latent variable and a manifest variable:
model_latent_manifest_inter <- "
latent_mod =~
x1
x2
x3
ageyr ~latent_mod:x4
"
fit_lat_mod <- sem(model = model_latent_manifest_inter, data = HolzingerSwineford1939) #run your latent interaction measurement model
summary(object = fit_lat_mod, std=T, fit.m=T) #check the summary
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've just noticed that sjt.lmer tables are displaying incorrect p-values, e.g., p-values that do not reflect the model summary. This appears to be a new-ish issue, as this worked fine last month?
Using the provided data and code in the package vignette
library(sjPlot)
library(sjmisc)
library(sjlabelled)
library(lme4)
library(sjstats)
load sample data
data(efc)
prepare grouping variables
efc$grp = as.factor(efc$e15relat)
levels(x = efc$grp) <- get_labels(efc$e15relat)
efc$care.level <- rec(efc$n4pstu, rec = "0=0;1=1;2=2;3:4=4",
val.labels = c("none", "I", "II", "III"))
data frame for fitted model
mydf <- data.frame(
neg_c_7 = efc$neg_c_7,
sex = to_factor(efc$c161sex),
c12hour = efc$c12hour,
barthel = efc$barthtot,
education = to_factor(efc$c172code),
grp = efc$grp,
carelevel = to_factor(efc$care.level)
)
fit sample models
fit1 <- lmer(neg_c_7 ~ sex + c12hour + barthel + (1 | grp), data = mydf)
summary(fit1)
p_value(fit1, p.kr =TRUE)
model summary
p_value summary
sjt.lmer output does not show these p-values??
Note that the first summary comes from a model fitted with lmerTest, which computes p-values with df based on Satterthwaite approximation (see first line in output).
p_value(), however, with p.kr = TRUE, uses the Kenward-Roger approximation from package pbkrtest, which is a bit more conservative.
Your output from sjt.lmer() seems to be messed up somehow, and I can't reproduce it with your example. My output looks ok: