What formula is used to calculate the value of Pr(>|t|) that is output when linear regression is performed by R?
I understand that the value of Pr (> | t |) is a p-value, but I do not understand how the value is calculated.
For example, although the value of Pr (> | t |) of x1 is displayed as 0.021 in the output result below, I want to know how this value was calculated
x1 <- c(10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100)
x2 <- c(20,30,60,70,100,110,140,150,180,190)
y <- c(100,120,150,180,210,220,250,280,310,330)
summary(lm(y ~ x1+x2))
Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x1 + x2)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-6 -2 0 2 6
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 74.0000 3.4226 21.621 1.14e-07 ***
x1 1.8000 0.6071 2.965 0.021 *
x2 0.4000 0.3071 1.303 0.234
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 4.781 on 7 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.9971, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9963
F-statistic: 1209 on 2 and 7 DF, p-value: 1.291e-09
Basically, the values in the column t-value are obtained by dividing the coefficient estimate (which is in the Estimate column) by the standard error.
For example in your case in the second row we get that:
tval = 1.8000 / 0.6071 = 2.965
The column you are interested in is the p-value. It is the probability that the absolute value of t-distribution is greater than 2.965. Using the symmetry of the t-distribution this probability is:
2 * pt(abs(tval), rdf, lower.tail = FALSE)
Here rdf denotes the residual degrees of freedom, which in our case is equal to 7:
rdf = number of observations minus total number of coefficient = 10 - 3 = 7
And a simple check shows that this is indeed what R does:
2 * pt(2.965, 7, lower.tail = FALSE)
[1] 0.02095584
Related
I am trying to model the relation between a scar acquisition rate of a wild population of animals, and I have calculated yearly rates before.
If you see below the plot, it seems to me that rates rise through the middle of the period and than fall again. I have tried to fit a polynomial LM with the code
model1 <- lm(Rate~poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE),data=yearlyratesub)
summary(model1)
model1
I have plotted using:
g <-ggplot(yearlyratesub, aes(year, Rate)) + geom_point(shape=1) + geom_smooth(method = lm, formula = y ~ poly(x, 2, raw = TRUE))
g
The model output was:
Call:
lm(formula = Rate ~ poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE), data = yearlyratesub)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.126332 -0.037683 -0.002602 0.053222 0.083503
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -8.796e+03 3.566e+03 -2.467 0.0297 *
poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE)1 8.747e+00 3.545e+00 2.467 0.0297 *
poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE)2 -2.174e-03 8.813e-04 -2.467 0.0297 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.0666 on 12 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.3369, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2264
F-statistic: 3.048 on 2 and 12 DF, p-value: 0.08503
How can I enterpret that now? The overall model p value is not significant but the intercept and single slopes are?
Should I rather try another fit than x² or even group the values and test between groups e.g. with an ANOVA? I know the LM has low fit but I guess it's because I have little values and maybe x² might be not it...?
Would be happy about input regarding model and outcome interpretation..
Grouping
Since the data was not provided (next time please provide a complete reproducible question including all inputs) we used the data in the Note at the end. We see that that the model is highly significant if we group the points using the indicated breakpoints.
g <- factor(findInterval(yearlyratesub$year, c(2007.5, 2014.5))+1); g
## [1] 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
## Levels: 1 2 3
fm <- lm(rate ~ g, yearlyratesub)
summary(fm)
giving
Call:
lm(formula = rate ~ g, data = yearlyratesub)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.064618 -0.018491 0.006091 0.029684 0.046831
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.110854 0.019694 5.629 0.000111 ***
g2 0.127783 0.024687 5.176 0.000231 ***
g3 -0.006714 0.027851 -0.241 0.813574
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.03939 on 12 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.7755, Adjusted R-squared: 0.738
F-statistic: 20.72 on 2 and 12 DF, p-value: 0.0001281
We could consider combining the outer two groups.
g2 <- factor(g == 2)
fm2 <- lm(rate ~ g2, yearlyratesub)
summary(fm2)
giving:
Call:
lm(formula = rate ~ g2, data = yearlyratesub)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.064618 -0.016813 0.007096 0.031363 0.046831
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.10750 0.01341 8.015 2.19e-06 ***
g2TRUE 0.13114 0.01963 6.680 1.52e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.03793 on 13 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.7744, Adjusted R-squared: 0.757
F-statistic: 44.62 on 1 and 13 DF, p-value: 1.517e-05
Sinusoid
Looking at the graph it seems that the points are turning up at the left and right edges suggesting we use a sinusoidal fit. a + b * cos(c * year)
fm3 <- nls(rate ~ cbind(a = 1, b = cos(c * year)),
yearlyratesub, start = list(c = 0.5), algorithm = "plinear")
summary(fm3)
giving
Formula: rate ~ cbind(a = 1, b = cos(c * year))
Parameters:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
c 0.4999618 0.0001449 3449.654 < 2e-16 ***
.lin.a 0.1787200 0.0150659 11.863 5.5e-08 ***
.lin.b 0.0753754 0.0205818 3.662 0.00325 **
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.05688 on 12 degrees of freedom
Number of iterations to convergence: 2
Achieved convergence tolerance: 5.241e-08
Comparison
Plotting the fits and looking at their residual sum of squares and AIC we have
plot(yearlyratesub)
# fm0 from Note at end, fm and fm2 are grouping models, fm3 is sinusoidal
L <- list(fm0 = fm0, fm = fm, fm2 = fm2, fm3 = fm3)
for(i in seq_along(L)) {
lines(fitted(L[[i]]) ~ year, yearlyratesub, col = i, lwd = 2)
}
legend("topright", names(L), col = seq_along(L), lwd = 2)
giving the following where lower residual sum of squares and AIC (which takes into account the number of paramters) are better. We see that fm fits the most closely based on residual sum of squares but with fm2 fitting almost as well; however, when taking the number of parameters into account by using AIC fm2 has the lowest and so is most favored by that criterion.
cbind(RSS = sapply(L, deviance), AIC = sapply(L, AIC))
## RSS AIC
## fm0 0.05488031 -33.59161
## fm 0.01861659 -49.80813
## fm2 0.01870674 -51.73567
## fm3 0.04024237 -38.24512
Note
yearlyratesub <-
structure(list(year = c(2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019), rate = c(0.14099813521287,
0.0949946651016247, 0.0904788394070601, 0.11694517831575, 0.26786193592875,
0.256346628540479, 0.222029818828298, 0.180116679856725, 0.285467976459104,
0.174019208113095, 0.28461698734932, 0.0574827955982996, 0.103378448084776,
0.114593695172686, 0.141105952837639)), row.names = c(NA, -15L
), class = "data.frame")
fm0 <- lm(rate ~ poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE), yearlyratesub)
summary(fm0)
giving
Call:
lm(formula = rate ~ poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE), data = yearlyratesub)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.128335 -0.038289 -0.002715 0.054090 0.084792
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -8.930e+03 3.621e+03 -2.466 0.0297 *
poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE)1 8.880e+00 3.600e+00 2.467 0.0297 *
poly(year, 2, raw = TRUE)2 -2.207e-03 8.949e-04 -2.467 0.0297 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.06763 on 12 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.3381, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2278
F-statistic: 3.065 on 2 and 12 DF, p-value: 0.0841
I ran a model explaining the weight of some plant as a function of time and trying to incorporate the treatment effect.
mod <- lm(weight ~time + treatment)
The model looks like this:
with model summary being:
Call:
lm(formula = weight ~ time + treatment, data = df)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-21.952 -7.674 0.770 6.851 21.514
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -37.5790 3.2897 -11.423 < 2e-16 ***
time 4.7478 0.2541 18.688 < 2e-16 ***
treatmentB 8.2000 2.4545 3.341 0.00113 **
treatmentC 5.4633 2.4545 2.226 0.02797 *
treatmentD 20.3533 2.4545 8.292 2.36e-13 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 9.506 on 115 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.7862, Adjusted R-squared: 0.7788
F-statistic: 105.7 on 4 and 115 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
ANOVA table
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: weight
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
time 1 31558.1 31558.1 349.227 < 2.2e-16 ***
treatment 3 6661.9 2220.6 24.574 2.328e-12 ***
Residuals 115 10392.0 90.4
I want to test the H0 that intercept1=intercept2=intercept3=intercept4. Is this done by simply interpreting the t-value and p-value for the intercept ( I guess not because this is the baseline (treatment A in this case))? I'm a bit puzzled by this as not much attention is paid on difference in intercept on most sources i looked up.
Why are these GLMMs so different?
Both are made with lme4, both use the same data, but one is framed in terms of successes and trials (m1bin) while one just uses the raw accuracy data (m1). Have I been completely mistaken thinking that lme4 figures out the binomial structure from the raw data this whole time? (BRMS does it just fine.) I'm scared, now, that some of my analyses will change.
d:
uniqueid dim incorrectlabel accuracy
1 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental marginal 0
2 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental extreme 1
3 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 relevant marginal 1
4 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental marginal 1
5 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 relevant marginal 0
6 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental marginal 0
dbin:
uniqueid dim incorrectlabel right count
<fctr> <fctr> <fctr> <int> <int>
1 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental extreme 3 3
2 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 incidental marginal 1 5
3 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 relevant extreme 3 4
4 A10LVHTF26QHQC:3X4MXAO0BGONT6U9HL2TG8P9YNBRW8 relevant marginal 3 4
5 A16HSMUJ7C7QA7:3DY46V3X3PI4B0HROD2HN770M46557 incidental extreme 3 4
6 A16HSMUJ7C7QA7:3DY46V3X3PI4B0HROD2HN770M46557 incidental marginal 2 4
> summary(m1bin)
Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) ['glmerMod']
Family: binomial ( logit )
Formula: cbind(right, count) ~ dim * incorrectlabel + (1 | uniqueid)
Data: dbin
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
398.2 413.5 -194.1 388.2 151
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.50329 -0.53743 0.08671 0.38922 1.28887
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
uniqueid (Intercept) 0 0
Number of obs: 156, groups: uniqueid, 39
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -0.48460 0.13788 -3.515 0.00044 ***
dimrelevant -0.13021 0.20029 -0.650 0.51562
incorrectlabelmarginal -0.15266 0.18875 -0.809 0.41863
dimrelevant:incorrectlabelmarginal -0.02664 0.27365 -0.097 0.92244
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) dmrlvn incrrc
dimrelevant -0.688
incrrctlblm -0.730 0.503
dmrlvnt:ncr 0.504 -0.732 -0.690
> summary(m1)
Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) ['glmerMod']
Family: binomial ( logit )
Formula: accuracy ~ dim * incorrectlabel + (1 | uniqueid)
Data: d
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
864.0 886.2 -427.0 854.0 619
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.3532 -1.0336 0.7524 0.9350 1.1514
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
uniqueid (Intercept) 0.04163 0.204
Number of obs: 624, groups: uniqueid, 39
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 0.140946 0.088242 1.597 0.1102
dim1 0.155923 0.081987 1.902 0.0572 .
incorrectlabel1 0.180156 0.081994 2.197 0.0280 *
dim1:incorrectlabel1 0.001397 0.082042 0.017 0.9864
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) dim1 incrr1
dim1 0.010
incrrctlbl1 0.128 0.006
dm1:ncrrct1 0.005 0.138 0.010
I figured they'd be the same. Modeling both in BRMS gives the same models with the same estimates.
They should be the same (up to small numerical differences: see below), except for the log-likelihoods and metric based on them (although differences among a series of models in log-likelihoods/AIC/etc. should be the same). I think your problem is using cbind(right, count) rather than cbind(right, count-right): from ?glm,
For binomial ... families the response can also be specified as ... a two-column matrix with the columns giving the numbers of successes and failures.
(emphasis added to point out this is not number of successes and total, but successes and failures).
Here's an example with one of the built-in data sets, comparing fits to an aggregated and a disaggregated data set:
library(lme4)
library(dplyr)
## disaggregate
cbpp_disagg <- cbpp %>% mutate(obs=seq(nrow(cbpp))) %>%
group_by(obs,herd,period,incidence) %>%
do(data.frame(disease=rep(c(0,1),c(.$size-.$incidence,.$incidence))))
nrow(cbpp_disagg) == sum(cbpp$size) ## check
g1 <- glmer(cbind(incidence,size-incidence)~period+(1|herd),
family=binomial,cbpp)
g2 <- glmer(disease~period+(1|herd),
family=binomial,cbpp_disagg)
## compare results
all.equal(fixef(g1),fixef(g2),tol=1e-5)
all.equal(VarCorr(g1),VarCorr(g2),tol=1e-6)
I have trouble understanding the difference between these two notations.
According to R intro y~x1/x2 represents that x2 in nested within x1. If x1 is a factor and x2 a continuous variable, is lm( y~x1/x2) a correct representation of nested ANCOVA?
What is confusing is that some online help topics suggest using aov(y~x1+Error(x2)) to represent a nested anova. Yet those two codes have completely different results.
For example:
x2 = rnorm(1000,2)
x1 = rep( c("A","B"), each=500)
y = x2*3+rnorm(1000)
Under this scenario I would expect x2 to be significant and x1 to be non significant.
summary(aov(y~x1+Error(x2)))
Error: x2
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq
x1 1 9262 9262
Error: Within
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
x1 1 0.0 0.0003 0 0.985
Residuals 997 967.9 0.9708
aov() works as expected. However, lm()....
summary(lm( y~x1/x2))
Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x1/x2)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-3.4468 -0.6352 0.0092 0.6526 2.8294
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.08727 0.09566 0.912 0.3618
x1B -0.24501 0.13715 -1.786 0.0743 .
x1A:x2 2.94012 0.04362 67.401 <2e-16 ***
x1B:x2 3.06272 0.04326 70.806 <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.9838 on 996 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.9058, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9055
F-statistic: 3191 on 3 and 996 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
x1 is marginally significant, and in many iterations it is highly significant? How can these results be so different?
What am I missing? Those two formulas are not suppose to represent the same thing? Or am I misunderstanding something on the underlying statistics?
I'm trying to fit a general linear model (GLM) on my data using R. I have a Y continuous variable and two categorical factors, A and B. Each factor is coded as 0 or 1, for presence or absence.
Even if just looking at the data I see a clear interaction between A and B, the GLM says that p-value>>>0.05. Am I doing something wrong?
First of all I create the data frame including my data for the GLM, which consists on a Y dependent variable and two factors, A and B. These are two level factors (0 and 1). There are 3 replicates per combination.
A<-c(0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,1)
B<-c(0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1)
Y<-c(0.90,0.87,0.93,0.85,0.98,0.96,0.56,0.58,0.59,0.02,0.03,0.04)
my_data<-data.frame(A,B,Y)
Let’s see how it looks like:
my_data
## A B Y
## 1 0 0 0.90
## 2 0 0 0.87
## 3 0 0 0.93
## 4 1 0 0.85
## 5 1 0 0.98
## 6 1 0 0.96
## 7 0 1 0.56
## 8 0 1 0.58
## 9 0 1 0.59
## 10 1 1 0.02
## 11 1 1 0.03
## 12 1 1 0.04
As we can see just looking on the data, there is a clear interaction between factor A and factor B, as the value of Y dramatically decreases when A and B are present (that is A=1 and B=1). However, using the glm function I get no significant interaction between A and B, as p-value>>>0.05
attach(my_data)
## The following objects are masked _by_ .GlobalEnv:
##
## A, B, Y
my_glm<-glm(Y~A+B+A*B,data=my_data,family=binomial)
## Warning: non-integer #successes in a binomial glm!
summary(my_glm)
##
## Call:
## glm(formula = Y ~ A + B + A * B, family = binomial, data = my_data)
##
## Deviance Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -0.275191 -0.040838 0.003374 0.068165 0.229196
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
## (Intercept) 2.1972 1.9245 1.142 0.254
## A 0.3895 2.9705 0.131 0.896
## B -1.8881 2.2515 -0.839 0.402
## A:B -4.1747 4.6523 -0.897 0.370
##
## (Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
##
## Null deviance: 7.86365 on 11 degrees of freedom
## Residual deviance: 0.17364 on 8 degrees of freedom
## AIC: 12.553
##
## Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 6
While you state Y is continuous, the data shows that Y is rather a fraction. Hence, probably the reason you tried to apply GLM in the first place.
To model fractions (i.e. continuous values bounded by 0 and 1) can be done with logistic regression if certain assumptions are fullfilled. See the following cross-validated post for details: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/how-to-do-logistic-regression-in-r-when-outcome-is-fractional. However, from the data description it is not clear that those assumptions are fullfilled.
An alternative to model fractions are beta regression or fractional repsonse models.
See below how to apply those methods to your data. The results of both methods are consistent in terms of signs and significance.
# Beta regression
install.packages("betareg")
library("betareg")
result.betareg <-betareg(Y~A+B+A*B,data=my_data)
summary(result.betareg)
# Call:
# betareg(formula = Y ~ A + B + A * B, data = my_data)
#
# Standardized weighted residuals 2:
# Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
# -2.7073 -0.4227 0.0682 0.5574 2.1586
#
# Coefficients (mean model with logit link):
# Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
# (Intercept) 2.1666 0.2192 9.885 < 2e-16 ***
# A 0.6471 0.3541 1.828 0.0676 .
# B -1.8617 0.2583 -7.206 5.76e-13 ***
# A:B -4.2632 0.5156 -8.268 < 2e-16 ***
#
# Phi coefficients (precision model with identity link):
# Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
# (phi) 71.57 29.50 2.426 0.0153 *
# ---
# Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#
# Type of estimator: ML (maximum likelihood)
# Log-likelihood: 24.56 on 5 Df
# Pseudo R-squared: 0.9626
# Number of iterations: 62 (BFGS) + 2 (Fisher scoring)
# ----------------------------------------------------------
# Fractional response model
install.packages("frm")
library("frm")
frm(Y,cbind(A, B, AB=A*B),linkfrac="logit")
*** Fractional logit regression model ***
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
# INTERCEPT 2.197225 0.157135 13.983 0.000 ***
# A 0.389465 0.530684 0.734 0.463
# B -1.888120 0.159879 -11.810 0.000 ***
# AB -4.174668 0.555642 -7.513 0.000 ***
#
# Note: robust standard errors
#
# Number of observations: 12
# R-squared: 0.992
The family=binomial implies Logit (Logistic) Regression, which is itself produces a binary result.
From Quick-R
Logistic Regression
Logistic regression is useful when you are predicting a binary outcome
from a set of continuous predictor variables. It is frequently
preferred over discriminant function analysis because of its less
restrictive assumptions.
The data shows an interaction. Try to fit a different model, logistic is not appropriate.
with(my_data, interaction.plot(A, B, Y, fixed = TRUE, col = 2:3, type = "l"))
An analysis of variance shows clear significance for all factors and interaction.
fit <- aov(Y~(A*B),data=my_data)
summary(fit)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
A 1 0.2002 0.2002 130.6 3.11e-06 ***
B 1 1.1224 1.1224 732.0 3.75e-09 ***
A:B 1 0.2494 0.2494 162.7 1.35e-06 ***
Residuals 8 0.0123 0.0015
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1