I am working with a dataset with 3,500 observations and includes a Body Mass Index variable. There are around 300 NA values for the BMI variable which I have imputed using multiple imputation. Apologies that this is not reproducible, wasn't sure how to do that quickly in this case. Here is the code I used to impute the data.
a1 <- amelia(x = df, m = 30, idvars = c("EDUC_1","REGION_3"),
noms=c("REGION_1","REGION_2","REGION_4","SMOKE","MARRIED","NON_WHITE","MOD_SEV_ANX","HYPERTEN",
"DIABETES","BELOW_100_POVERTY", "IMMIGRANT","FEMALE", "EDUC_2","EDUC_3","EDUC_4","EDUC_5"),
p2s = 0)
a1
imp.mod <- zelig(BMICALC ~ AGE+FAMSIZE+factor(BELOW_100_POVERTY)+factor(IMMIGRANT)
+factor(FEMALE)+factor(EDUC_2)+factor(EDUC_3)
+factor(EDUC_4)+factor(EDUC_5)+factor(REGION_1)+factor(REGION_2)+factor(REGION_4)+
factor(SMOKE)+factor(MARRIED)+factor(NON_WHITE)+factor(MOD_SEV_ANX)+factor(HYPERTEN)+
factor(DIABETES), model = "ls", data = a1, cite = F)
summary(imp.mod)
And here is the output
From this website here I have found information on how to interpret whether the imputation needs more investigation, or whether I can continue to analyze the data using a regression model. I have included the code where I create the 2 visuals per the website's instructions but I am unclear on how to interpret whether the imputation is accurate. Do the two distributions in the first graphic need to be close? Can someone clarify what the y=x line and blue confidence intervals/dots mean in the second image? Is the output here indicative of whether the imputation will suffice to be used in regression analysis? I've attached the code and output below. Thank you!
compare.density(a1, var = "BMICALC")
overimpute(a1, var = "BMICALC")
Related
I have a panel dataset (countries and years) with a lot of missing data so I've decided to use multiple imputation. The goal is to see the relationship between the proportion of women in management (managerial_value) and total fatal workplace injuries (total_fatal)
From what I've read online, Amelia is the best option for panel data so I used that like so:
amelia_data <- amelia(spdata, ts = "year", cs = "country", polytime = 1,
intercs = FALSE)
where spdata is my original dataset.
This imputation process worked, but I'm unsure of how to proceed with forming decision trees using the imputed data (an object of class 'amelia').
I originally tried creating a function (amelia2df) to turn each of the 5 imputed datasets into a data frame:
amelia2df <- function(amelia_data, which_imp = 1) {
stopifnot(inherits(amelia_data, "amelia"), is.numeric(which_imp))
imps <- amelia_data$imputations[[which_imp]]
as.data.frame(imps)
}
one_amelia <- amelia2df(amelia_data, which_imp = 1)
two_amelia <- amelia2df(amelia_data, which_imp = 2)
three_amelia <- amelia2df(amelia_data, which_imp = 3)
four_amelia <- amelia2df(amelia_data, which_imp = 4)
five_amelia <- amelia2df(amelia_data, which_imp = 5)
where one_amelia is the data frame for the first imputed dataset, two_amelia is the second, and so on.
I then combined them using rbind():
total_amelia <- rbind(one_amelia, two_amelia, three_amelia, four_amelia, five_amelia)
And used the new combined dataset total_amelia to construct a decision tree:
set.seed(300)
tree_data <- total_amelia
I_index <- sample(1:nrow(tree_data), size = 0.75*nrow(tree_data), replace=FALSE)
I_train <- tree_data[I_index,]
I_test <- tree_data[-I_index,]
fatal_tree <- rpart(total_fatal ~ managerial_value, I_train)
rpart.plot(fatal_tree)
fatal_tree
This "works" as in it doesn't produce an error, but I'm not sure that it is appropriately using the imputed data.
I found a couple resources explaining how to apply least squares, logit, etc., but nothing about decision trees. I'm under the impression I'd need the 5 imputed datasets to be combined into one data frame, but I have not been able to find a way to do that.
I've also looked into Zelig and bind_rows but haven't found anything that returns one data frame that I can then use to form a decision tree.
Any help would be appreciated!
As already indicated by #Noah, you would set up the multiple imputation workflow different than you currently do.
Multiple imputation is not really a tool to improve your results or to make them more correct.
It is a method to enable you to quantify the uncertainty caused by the missing data, that comes along with your analysis.
All the different datasets created by multiple imputation are plausible imputations, because of the uncertainty, you don't know, which one is correct.
You would therefore use multiple imputation the following way:
Create your m imputed datasets
Build your trees on each imputed dataset separately
Do you analysis on each tree separately
In your final paper, you can now state how much uncertainty is caused trough the missing values/imputation
This means you get e.g. 5 different analysis results for m = 5 imputed datasets. First this looks confusing, but this enables you to give bounds, between the correct result probably lies. Or if you get completely different results for each imputed dataset, you know, there is too much uncertainty caused by the missing values to give reliable results.
I have a stratified cox-model and want predicted survival-curves for certain profiles, based on that model.
Now, because I'm working with a large dataset with a lot of strata, I want predictions for very specific strata only, to save time and memory.
The help-page of survfit.coxph states: ... If newdata does contain strata variables, then the result will contain one curve per row of newdata, based on the indicated stratum of the original model.
When I run the code below, where newdata does contain the stratum-variable, I still get predictions for both strata, which contradicts the help-page
df <- data.frame(X1 = runif(200),
X2 = sample(c("A", "B"), 200, replace = TRUE),
Ev = sample(c(0,1), 200, replace = TRUE),
Time = rexp(200))
testfit <- coxph( Surv(Time, Ev) ~ X1 + strata(X2), df)
out <- survfit(testfit, newdata = data.frame(X1 = 0.6, X2 = "A"))
Is there anything I fail to see or understand here?
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature in survival:::survfit.coxph. It looks like the intended behaviour in the code is that only requested strata are returned. In the function:
strata(X2) is evaluated in an environment containing newdata and the result, A is returned.
The full curve is then created.
There is then some logic to split the curve into strata, but only if result$surv is a matrix.
In your example it is not a matrix. I can't find any documentation on the expected usage of this if it's not a bug. Perhaps it would be worth dropping the author/maintainer a note.
maintainer("survival")
# [1] "Terry M Therneau <xxxxxxxx.xxxxx#xxxx.xxx>"
Some comments that may be helpfull:
My example was not big enough (and I seem not to have read the related github post very well, but that was after I posted my question here): if newdata has at least two lines (and of course the strata-variable), predictions are returned only for the requested strata
There is an inefficiency inside survfit.coxph, where the baseline-hazard is calculated for every stratum in the original dataset, not only for the requested strata (see my contribution to the same github post). However, that doesn't seem to be a big issue (a test on a dataset with roughly half a million observation, 50% events and 1000 strata), takes less than a minute
The problem is memory allocation somewhere during calculations (in the above example, things collapse once I want predictions for 100 observations - 1 stratum each - while the final output of predictions for 80 is only a few MB)
My work-around:
Select all observations you want predictions for
use lp <- predict(..., type='lp') to get the linear predictor for all these observations
use survfit only on the first observation: survfit(fit, newdata = expand_grid(newdf, strat = strata_list))
Store the resulting survival estimates in a data.frame (or not, that's up to you)
To calculate predicted survival for other observations, use the PH-assumption (see formula below). This invokes the overhead of survfit.coxph only once and if you focus on survival on only a few times (e.g. 5- and 10-year survival), you can reduce the computer time even more
Long story short:
I need to run a multinomial logit regression with both individual and time fixed effects in R.
I thought I could use the packages mlogit and survival to this purpose, but I am cannot find a way to include fixed effects.
Now the long story:
I have found many questions on this topic on various stack-related websites, none of them were able to provide an answer. Also, I have noticed a lot of confusion regarding what a multinomial logit regression with fixed effects is (people use different names) and about the R packages implementing this function.
So I think it would be beneficial to provide some background before getting to the point.
Consider the following.
In a multiple choice question, each respondent take one choice.
Respondents are asked the same question every year. There is no apriori on the extent to which choice at time t is affected by the choice at t-1.
Now imagine to have a panel data recording these choices. The data, would look like this:
set.seed(123)
# number of observations
n <- 100
# number of possible choice
possible_choice <- letters[1:4]
# number of years
years <- 3
# individual characteristics
x1 <- runif(n * 3, 5.0, 70.5)
x2 <- sample(1:n^2, n * 3, replace = F)
# actual choice at time 1
actual_choice_year_1 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = rep(1/4, 4))]
actual_choice_year_2 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = c(0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1))]
actual_choice_year_3 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = c(0.2, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1))]
# create long dataset
df <- data.frame(choice = c(actual_choice_year_1, actual_choice_year_2, actual_choice_year_3),
x1 = x1, x2 = x2,
individual_fixed_effect = as.character(rep(1:n, years)),
time_fixed_effect = as.character(rep(1:years, each = n)),
stringsAsFactors = F)
I am new to this kind of analysis. But if I understand correctly, if I want to estimate the effects of respondents' characteristics on their choice, I may use a multinomial logit regression.
In order to take advantage of the longitudinal structure of the data, I want to include in my specification individual and time fixed effects.
To the best of my knowledge, the multinomial logit regression with fixed effects was first proposed by Chamberlain (1980, Review of Economic Studies 47: 225–238). Recently, Stata users have been provided with the routines to implement this model (femlogit).
In the vignette of the femlogit package, the author refers to the R function clogit, in the survival package.
According to the help page, clogit requires data to be rearranged in a different format:
library(mlogit)
# create wide dataset
data_mlogit <- mlogit.data(df, id.var = "individual_fixed_effect",
group.var = "time_fixed_effect",
choice = "choice",
shape = "wide")
Now, if I understand correctly how clogit works, fixed effects can be passed through the function strata (see for additional details this tutorial). However, I am afraid that it is not clear to me how to use this function, as no coefficient values are returned for the individual characteristic variables (i.e. I get only NAs).
library(survival)
fit <- clogit(formula("choice ~ alt + x1 + x2 + strata(individual_fixed_effect, time_fixed_effect)"), as.data.frame(data_mlogit))
summary(fit)
Since I was not able to find a reason for this (there must be something that I am missing on the way these functions are estimated), I have looked for a solution using other packages in R: e.g., glmnet, VGAM, nnet, globaltest, and mlogit.
Only the latter seems to be able to explicitly deal with panel structures using appropriate estimation strategy. For this reason, I have decided to give it a try. However, I was only able to run a multinomial logit regression without fixed effects.
# state formula
formula_mlogit <- formula("choice ~ 1| x1 + x2")
# run multinomial regression
fit <- mlogit(formula_mlogit, data_mlogit)
summary(fit)
If I understand correctly how mlogit works, here's what I have done.
By using the function mlogit.data, I have created a dataset compatible with the function mlogit. Here, I have also specified the id of each individual (id.var = individual_fixed_effect) and the group to which individuals belongs to (group.var = "time_fixed_effect"). In my case, the group represents the observations registered in the same year.
My formula specifies that there are no variables correlated with a specific choice, and which are randomly distributed among individuals (i.e., the variables before the |). By contrast, choices are only motivated by individual characteristics (i.e., x1 and x2).
In the help of the function mlogit, it is specified that one can use the argument panel to use panel techniques. To set panel = TRUE is what I am after here.
The problem is that panel can be set to TRUE only if another argument of mlogit, i.e. rpar, is not NULL.
The argument rpar is used to specify the distribution of the random variables: i.e. the variables before the |.
The problem is that, since these variables does not exist in my case, I can't use the argument rpar and then set panel = TRUE.
An interesting question related to this is here. A few suggestions were given, and one seems to go in my direction. Unfortunately, no examples that I can replicate are provided, and I do not understand how to follow this strategy to solve my problem.
Moreover, I am not particularly interested in using mlogit, any efficient way to perform this task would be fine for me (e.g., I am ok with survival or other packages).
Do you know any solution to this problem?
Two caveats for those interested in answering:
I am interested in fixed effects, not in random effects. However, if you believe there is no other way to take advantage of the longitudinal structure of my data in R (there is indeed in Stata but I don't want to use it), please feel free to share your code.
I am not interested in going Bayesian. So if possible, please do not suggest this approach.
This message is a copy from a message that I wrote in R-Forge. I would like to compute Principal response curve analysis on my data. I have several pairs of plots where deer browse the vegetation on Anticosti island, Québec. There are repeated observations of each plot during the course of 4 years. At each site, there is a plot inside the enclosure (without deer, called "exclosure") and the other plot is outside the enclosure (with deer, called "control"). I would like to take into account the pairing of observations in and out of each enclosure in the PRC analysis. I would like to add an other condition term to the PRC (like in partial RDA) to consider the paired observations or extract value from a partial RDA computed with the PRC formula and plot it like it is done in a PRC.
More over, I would like to test with permutations tests the signification of the difference between the two treatments. My hypothesis is to find if vegetation composition is different in the exclosure than in the control throughout the years. So, I would like to know if there is a difference between the two treatments and if there is, after how many years.
Somebody knows how to do this?
So here the code of my prc (without taking paired observations into account):
levels (treat)
[1] "controle" "exclosure"
levels (years)
[1] "0" "3" "5" "8"
prc.out <- prc(data.prc.spe.hell, treat, years)
species <- colSums(data.prc.spe.hell)
plot(prc.out, select = species > 5)
ctrl <- how(plots = Plots(strata = site,type = "free"),
within = Within(type = "series"), nperm = 99)
anova(prc.out, permutations = ctrl, first=TRUE)
Here is the result.
Thank you very much for your help!
I may have an answer for the first part of your question:"I would like to add an other condition term to the PRC (like in partial RDA) to consider the paired observations".
I am currently working on a similar case and this is what I came up with: Since Principal Responses Curves (PRC) are a special case of RDA, and that the objective is to do a kind of "partial PRC", I read the R documentation of the function rda() and this is what I found: "If matrix Z is supplied, its effects are removed from the community matrix, and the residual matrix is submitted to the next stage."
So if I understand well, when you do a partial RDA with X, Y, Z (X=community matrix, Y=Constraining matrix, Z=Conditioning matrix), the first thing done by the function is to remove the effect of Z by using the residuals matrix of the RDA of X ~ Z.
If that is true, it is easy to do this step alone, and then to use the residual matrix in your PRC:
library(vegan)
rda.out = rda(X ~ Z) # equivalent of "rda.out = rda(X ~ Condition(Z))"
rda.res = residuals(rda.out)
prc.out = prc(rda.res, treatment, time)
If you coded a dummy variable for your pairing effect, I think it should be as.factor() and NOT as.numeric().
I am not a stats expert, but it looks right to me. Even though that look simple, I would appreciate if someone could validate my answer.
Cheers
I'm relatively new to R and am currently in the process of constructing a PLS model using the pls package. I have two independent datasets of equal size, the first is used here for calibrating the model. The dataset comprises of multiple response variables (y) and 101 explanatory variables (x), for 28 observations. The response variables, however, will each be included seperately in a PLS model. The code current looks as follows:
# load data
data <- read.table("....txt", header=TRUE)
data <- as.data.frame(data)
# define response variables (y)
HEIGHT <- as.numeric(unlist(data[2]))
FBM <- as.numeric(unlist(data[3]))
N <- as.numeric(unlist(data[4]))
C <- as.numeric(unlist(data[5]))
CHL <- as.numeric(unlist(data[6]))
# generate matrix containing the explanatory (x) variables only
spectra <-(data[8:ncol(data)])
# calibrate PLS model using LOO and 20 components
library(pls)
refl.pls <- plsr(N ~ as.matrix(spectra), ncomp=20, validation = "LOO", jackknife = TRUE)
# visualize RMSEP -vs- number of components
plot(RMSEP(refl.pls), legendpos = "topright")
# calculate explained variance for x & y variables
summary(refl.pls)
I have currently arrived at the point at which I need to decide, for each response variable, the optimal number of components to include in my PLS model. The RMSEP values already provide a decent indication. However, I would also like to base my decision on the PRESS (Predicted Residual Sum of Squares) statistic, in accordance various studies comparable to the one I am conducting. So in short, I would like to extract the PRESS statistic for each PLS model with n components.
I have browsed through the pls package documentation and across the web, but unfortunately have been unable to find an answer. If there is anyone out here that could help me get in the right direction that would be greatly appreciated!
You can find the PRESS values in the mvr object.
refl.pls$validation$PRESS
You can see this either by exploring the object directly with str or by perusing the documentation more thoroughly. You will notice if you look at ?mvr you will see the following:
validation if validation was requested, the results of the
cross-validation. See mvrCv for details.
Validation was indeed requested so we follow this to ?mvrCv where you will find:
PRESS a matrix of PRESS values for models with 1, ...,
ncomp components. Each row corresponds to one response variable.