I am trying to perform a simple RDA using the vegan package to test the effects of depth, basin and sector on genetic population structure using the following data frame.
datafile.
The "ALL" variable is the genetic population assignment (structure).
In case the link to my data doesn't work well, I'll paste a snippet of my data frame here.
I read in the data this way:
RDAmorph_Oct6 <- read.csv("RDAmorph_Oct6.csv")
My problems are two-fold:
1) I can't seem to get my genetic variable to read correctly. I have tried three things to fix this.
gen=rda(ALL ~ Depth + Basin + Sector, data=RDAmorph_Oct6, na.action="na.exclude")
Error in eval(specdata, environment(formula), enclos = globalenv()) :
object 'ALL' not found
In addition: There were 12 warnings (use warnings() to see them)
so, I tried things like:
> gen=rda("ALL ~ Depth + Basin + Sector", data=RDAmorph_Oct6, na.action="na.exclude")
Error in colMeans(x, na.rm = TRUE) : 'x' must be numeric
so I specified numeric
> RDAmorph_Oct6$ALL = as.numeric(RDAmorph_Oct6$ALL)
> gen=rda("ALL ~ Depth + Basin + Sector", data=RDAmorph_Oct6, na.action="na.exclude")
Error in colMeans(x, na.rm = TRUE) : 'x' must be numeric
I am really baffled. I've also tried specifying each variable with dataset$variable, but this doesn't work either.
The strange thing is, I can get an rda to work if I look the effects of the environmental variables on a different, composite, variable
MC = RDAmorph_Oct6[,5:6]
H_morph_var=rda(MC ~ Depth + Basin + Sector, data=RDAmorph_Oct6, na.action="na.exclude")
Note that I did try to just extract the ALL column for the genetic rda above. This didn't work either.
Regardless, this leads to my second problem.
When I try to plot the rda I get a super weird plot. Note the five dots in three places. I have no idea where these come from.
I will have to graph the genetic rda, and I figure I'll come up with the same issue, so I thought I'd ask now.
I've been though several tutorials and tried many iterations of each issue. What I have provided here is I think the best summary. If anyone can give me some clues, I would much appreciate it.
The documentation, ?rda, says that the left-hand side of the formula specifying your model needs to be a data matrix. You can't pass it the name of a variable in the data object as the left-hand side (or at least if this was ever anticipated, doing so exposes bugs in how we parse the formula which is what leads to further errors).
What you want is a data frame containing a variable ALL for the left-hand side of the formula.
This works:
library('vegan')
df <- read.csv('~/Downloads/RDAmorph_Oct6.csv')
ALL <- df[, 'ALL', drop = FALSE]
Notice the drop = FALSE, which stops R from dropping the empty dimension (i.e. converting the single column data frame to a vector.
Then your original call works:
ord <- rda(ALL ~ Basin + Depth + Sector, data = df, na.action = 'na.exclude')
The problem is that rda expects a separate df for the first part of the formula (ALL in your code), and does not use the one in the data = argument.
As mentioned above, you can create a new df with the variable needed for analysis, but here's a oneline solution that should also work:
gen <- rda(RDAmorph_Oct6$ALL ~ Depth + Basin + Sector, data = RDAmorph_Oct6, na.action = na.exclude)
This is partly similar to Gavin simpson's answer. There is also a problem with the categorical vectors in your data frame. You can either use library(data.table) and the rowid function to set the categorical variables to unique integers. Most preferably, not use them. I also wanted to set the ID vector as site names, but I am too lazy now.
library(data.table)
RDAmorph_Oct6 <- read.csv("C:/........../RDAmorph_Oct6.csv")
#remove NAs before. I like looking at my dataframes before I analyze them.
RDAmorph_Oct6 <- na.omit(RDAmorph_Oct6)
#I removed one duplicate
RDAmorph_Oct6 <- RDAmorph_Oct6[!duplicated(RDAmorph_Oct6$ID),]
#Create vector with only ALL
ALL <- RDAmorph_Oct6$ALL
#Create data frame with only numeric vectors and remove ALL
dfn <- RDAmorph_Oct6[,-c(1,4,11,12)]
#Select all categorical vectors.
dfc <- RDAmorph_Oct6[,c(1,11,12)]
#Give the categorical vectors unique integers doesn't do this for ID (Why?).
dfc2 <- as.data.frame(apply(dfc, 2, function(x) rowid(x)))
#Bind back with numeric data frame
dfnc <- cbind.data.frame(dfn, dfc2)
#Select only what you need
df <- dfnc[c("Depth", "Basin", "Sector")]
#The rest you know
rda.out <- rda(ALL ~ ., data=df, scale=T)
plot(rda.out, scaling = 2, xlim=c(-3,2), ylim=c(-1,1))
#Also plot correlations
plot(cbind.data.frame(ALL, df))
Sector and depth have the highest variation. Almost logical, since there are only three vectors used. The assignment of integers to the categorical vector has probably no meaning at all. The function assigns from top to bottom unique integers to the following unique character string. I am also not really sure which question you want to answer. Based on this you can organize the data frame.
Related
I'm trying to train a RF model in R, but when i try to define the model:
rf <- randomForest(labs ~ .,data=as.matrix(dd.train))
It gives me the error:
Error in randomForest.default(m, y, ...) :
Can not handle categorical predictors with more than 53 categories.
Any idea what could it be?
And no, before you say "You have some categoric variable with more than 53 categories". No, all variables but labs are numeric.
Tim Biegeleisen: Read the last line of my question and you will see why is not the same as the one you are linking!
Edited to address followup from OP
I believe using as.matrix in this case implicitly creates factors. It is also not necessary for this packages. You can keep it as a data frame, but will need to make sure that any unused factor levels are dropped by using droplevels (or something similar). There are many reasons an unused factor may be in your data set, but a common one is a dropped observation.
Below is a quick example that reproduces your error:
library('randomForest')
#making a toy data frame
x <- data.frame('one' = c(1,1,1,1,1,seq(50) ),
'two' = c(seq(54),NA),
'three' = seq(55),
'four' = seq(55) )
x$one <- as.factor(x$one)
x <- na.omit(x) #getting rid of an NA. Note this removes the whole row.
randomForest(one ~., data = as.matrix(x)) #your first error
randomForest(one ~., data = x) #your second error
x <- droplevels(x)
randomForest(one ~., data = x) #OK
I received a comment from a reviewer who wanted to have all the p-values for each line of specific variables levels in a demographic characteristic table (Table 1). Even though the request appears quite strange (and inexact) to me, I would like to agree with his suggestion.
library(tableone)
## Load data
library(survival); data(pbc)
# drop ID from variable list
vars <- names(pbc)[-1]
## Create Table 1 stratified by trt (can add more stratifying variables)
tableOne <- CreateTableOne(vars = vars, strata = c("trt"), data = pbc, factorVars = c("status","edema","stage"))
print(tableOne, nonnormal = c("bili","chol","copper","alk.phos","trig"), exact = c("status","stage"), smd = TRUE)
the output:
I need to have the p-values for each level of the variables status, edema and stage, with Bonferroni correction. I went through the documentation without success.
In addition, is it correct to use chi-squared to compare sample sizes across rows?
UPDATE:
I'm not sure if my approach is correct, however I would like to share it with you. I generated for the variable status a dummy variable for each strata, than I calculated the chisq .
library(tableone)
## Load data
library(survival); data(pbc)
d <- pbc[,c("status", "trt")]
# Convert dummy variables
d$status.0 <- ifelse(d$status==0, 1,0)
d$status.1 <- ifelse(d$status==1, 1,0)
d$status.2 <- ifelse(d$status==2, 1,0)
t <- rbind(
chisq.test(d$status.0, d$trt),
# p-value = 0.7202
chisq.test(d$status.1, d$trt),
# p-value = 1
chisq.test(d$status.2, d$trt)
#p-value = 0.7818
)
t
BONFERRONI ADJ FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS:
p <- t[,"p.value"]
p.adjust(p, method = "bonferroni")
This question was posted some time ago, so I supose you already answered the reviewer.
I don't really understand why computing adjusted p values for just three varibles. In fact, adjusting p values depends on the number of comparisons made. If you use p.adjust() with a vector of 3 p values, results will not really be "adjusted" by the amount of comparison made (you really did more than a dozen and a half!)
I show how to extract all p-values so you can compute the adjusted ones.
To extract pValues from package tableOne there is a way calling object attributes (explained first), and two quick and dirty ways (at the bottom part).
To extract them, first I copy your code to create your tableOne:
library(tableone)
## Load data
library(survival); data(pbc)
# drop ID from variable list
vars <- names(pbc)[-1]
## Create Table 1 stratified by trt (can add more stratifying variables)
tableOne <- CreateTableOne(vars = vars, strata = c("trt"), data = pbc, factorVars = c("status","edema","stage"))
You can see what your "tableOne" object has via attributes()
attributes(tableOne)
You can see a tableOne usually has a table for continuous and categorical variables. You can use attributes() in them too
attributes(tableOne$CatTable)
# you can notice $pValues
Now you know "where" the pValues are, you can extract them with attr()
attr(tableOne$CatTable, "pValues")
Something similar with numerical variables:
attributes(tableOne$ContTable)
# $pValues are there
attr(tableOne$ContTable, "pValues")
You have pValues for Normal and NonNormal variables.
As you set them before, you can extract both
mypCont <- attr(tableOne$ContTable, "pValues") # put them in an object
nonnormal = c("bili","chol","copper","alk.phos","trig") # copied from your code
mypCont[rownames(mypCont) %in% c(nonnormal), "pNonNormal"] # extract NonNormal
"%!in%" <- Negate("%in%")
mypCont[rownames(mypCont) %!in% c(nonnormal), "pNonNormal"] # extract Normal
All that said, and your pValues extracted, I think there are two much more convenient quick and dirty ways to accomplish the same:
Quick and dirty way A: using dput() with your printed tableOne. Then search in the console where the pValues are and copy-paste them to the script, to store them in an object
Quick and dirty way B: If you look in tableOne vignette there is an "Exporting" section, you can use print(tableOne, quote = TRUE) and then just copy and paste to a spreadsheet (like LibreOffice, Excel...).
Then I would select the column with pValue, transpose it, and get it back to R, to compute adjusted p values with p.adjust() and copy them back to the spreadsheet for journal submission
I am running an unbalanced panel regression.
Independent Variable is Gross
Dependent Varibales are DEX, GRW, Debt and Life.
Time is Year
Grouping is Country
I have successfully executed the following commands:
tino=read.delim("clipboard")
tino
summary(tino)
Dep<- with(tino, cbind(Gross, index=c("Country, Year"))
Ind<- tino[ , c('DEX', 'GRW' , 'Debt', 'Life')]
install.packages("plm")
library('plm')
pandata<-plm.data(tino)
tino
summary(pandata)
summary(Dep)
summary(Ind)
However, When I run the Command below for results, I get an error.
pooling<- plm(Dep~Ind, data = pandata, model= "pooling")
gives error below
Error in model.frame.default(terms(formula, lhs = lhs, rhs = rhs, data = data,: invalid type (list) for variable 'Ind'
Please help.
Thanks
Without access to your data, it is impossible to confirm that this will work, but I am going to try to point out several issues in your code that are likely contributing to the error.
This line is fine:
tino=read.delim("clipboard")
Here is where you start to make errors:
Dep<- with(tino, cbind(Gross, index=c("Country, Year"))
Ind<- tino[ , c('DEX', 'GRW' , 'Debt', 'Life')]
with() is typically used to create new vectors out of a data.frame. All it does is allow you to drop the $ notation for referencing variables in a data.frame and nothing else. From the read of your code, you may be thinking that with() is actually modifying the tino object, which it is not.
Further, when you want to construct a data.frame for use in a regression model, you want all of the right-hand and left-hand side variables in one data.frame or matrix rather than separating them. This is because most modelling functions operate using a "formula" and data argument, which are passed to model.frame() to preprocess the data before modelling.
This means you presumably want to do something like the following, skipping all of the above:
pandata <- plm.data(tino, index = c("Country", "Year"))
pooling <- plm(Gross ~ DEX + GRW + Debt + Life, data = pandata, model = "pooling")
summary(pooling)
If you have a lot of right-hand side variables, you can subset your data.frame, with something like:
pandata2 <- plm.data(tino[ , c('Gross', 'DEX', 'GRW' , 'Debt', 'Life')], index = c("Country", "Year"))
pooling2 <- plm(Gross ~ ., data = pandata2, model = "pooling")
using the . notation as a shorthand for "all other columns in the data."
I'm fairly new to using the caret library and it's causing me some problems. Any
help/advice would be appreciated. My situations are as follows:
I'm trying to run a general linear model on some data and, when I run it
through the confusionMatrix, I get 'the data and reference factors must have
the same number of levels'. I know what this error means (I've run into it before), but I've double and triple checked my data manipulation and it all looks correct (I'm using the right variables in the right places), so I'm not sure why the two values in the confusionMatrix are disagreeing. I've run almost the exact same code for a different variable and it works fine.
I went through every variable and everything was balanced until I got to the
confusionMatrix predict. I discovered this by doing the following:
a <- table(testing2$hold1yes0no)
a[1]+a[2]
1543
b <- table(predict(modelFit,trainTR2))
dim(b)
[1] 1538
Those two values shouldn't disagree. Where are the missing 5 rows?
My code is below:
set.seed(2382)
inTrain2 <- createDataPartition(y=HOLD$hold1yes0no, p = 0.6, list = FALSE)
training2 <- HOLD[inTrain2,]
testing2 <- HOLD[-inTrain2,]
preProc2 <- preProcess(training2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)], method="BoxCox")
trainPC2 <- predict(preProc2, training2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)])
trainTR2 <- predict(preProc2, testing2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)])
modelFit <- train(training2$hold1yes0no ~ ., method ="glm", data = trainPC2)
confusionMatrix(testing2$hold1yes0no, predict(modelFit,trainTR2))
I'm not sure as I don't know your data structure, but I wonder if this is due to the way you set up your modelFit, using the formula method. In this case, you are specifying y = training2$hold1yes0no and x = everything else. Perhaps you should try:
modelFit <- train(trainPC2, training2$hold1yes0no, method="glm")
Which specifies y = training2$hold1yes0no and x = trainPC2.
I originally had a data frame composed of 12 columns in N rows. The last column is my class (0 or 1). I had to convert my entire data frame to numeric with
training <- sapply(training.temp,as.numeric)
But then I thought I needed the class column to be a factor column to use the randomforest() tool as a classifier, so I did
training[,"Class"] <- factor(training[,ncol(training)])
I proceed to creating the tree with
training_rf <- randomForest(Class ~., data = trainData, importance = TRUE, do.trace = 100)
But I'm getting two errors:
1: In Ops.factor(training[, "Status"], factor(training[, ncol(training)])) :
<= this is not relevant for factors (roughly translated)
2: In randomForest.default(m, y, ...) :
The response has five or fewer unique values. Are you sure you want to do regression?
I would appreciate it if someone could point out the formatting mistake I'm making.
Thanks!
So the issue is actually quite simple. It turns out my training data was an atomic vector. So it first had to be converted as a data frame. So I needed to add the following line:
training <- as.data.frame(training)
Problem solved!
First, your coercion to a factor is not working because of syntax errors. Second, you should always use indexing when specifying a RF model. Here are changes in your code that should make it work.
training <- sapply(training.temp,as.numeric)
training[,"Class"] <- as.factor(training[,"Class"])
training_rf <- randomForest(x=training[,1:(ncol(training)-1)], y=training[,"Class"],
importance=TRUE, do.trace=100)
# You can also coerce to a factor directly in the model statement
training_rf <- randomForest(x=training[,1:(ncol(training)-1)], y=as.factor(training[,"Class"]),
importance=TRUE, do.trace=100)