Writing linear and exponential equations for fitted SMA model - r
I have fitted a standard major axis model to my data, and I need add an equation onto the plot but I can't figure out what this should be.
My data looks like this:
> head(d1)
x y
1 5.379431 10.263158
2 5.863559 5.287081
3 10.367855 4.186603
4 11.459073 5.669856
5 14.477543 6.387560
6 16.713999 4.377990
My model gives the following:
library(smatr)
m1 <- sma(y~x, data = d1, log="xy")
#Coefficients:
# elevation slope
#estimate -0.23978063 0.8576100
#lower limit -0.54266508 0.6786154
#upper limit 0.06310381 1.0838170
#H0 : variables uncorrelated
#R-squared : 0.3228417
#P-value : 1.3667e-05
So based on this I have plotted the data and added an equation for the line that looks like this:
plot1 of data and SMA fit
My problem is that the regression equation y=-0.240+0.858x doesn't make sense with the trendline. I have also been asked to provide an exponential equation (e.g. y = ab^x) and I have no idea how to convert it.
Any help would be much appreciated!
Following the comments, the working formula is: y=e^(0.240+ 0.858*log10(x))).
This is directly in the y=a+bx format, with:
a=e^0.240
b=e^(0.858/ln(10))
Related
Fitting experimental data points to different cumulative distributions using R
I am new to programming and using R software, so I would really appreciate your feedback to the current problem that I am trying to solve.
So, I have to fit a cumulative distribution with some function (two/three parameter function). This seems to be pretty straight-forward task, but I've been buzzing around this now for some time.
Let me show you what are my variables:
x=c(0.01,0.011482,0.013183,0.015136,0.017378,0.019953,0.022909,0.026303,0.0302,0.034674,0.039811,0.045709,0.052481,0.060256,0.069183,0.079433,0.091201,0.104713,0.120226,0.138038,0.158489,0.18197,0.20893,0.239883,0.275423,0.316228,0.363078,0.416869,0.47863,0.549541,0.630957,0.724436,0.831764,0.954993,1.096478,1.258925,1.44544,1.659587,1.905461,2.187762,2.511886,2.884031,3.311311,3.801894,4.365158,5.011872,5.754399,6.606934,7.585776,8.709636,10,11.481536,13.182567,15.135612,17.378008,19.952623,22.908677,26.30268,30.199517,34.673685,39.810717,45.708819,52.480746,60.255959,69.183097,79.432823,91.201084,104.712855,120.226443,138.038426,158.489319,181.970086,208.929613,239.883292,275.42287,316.227766,363.078055,416.869383,478.630092,549.540874,630.957344,724.43596,831.763771,954.992586,1096.478196)
y=c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.00044816,0.00127554,0.00221488,0.00324858,0.00438312,0.00559138,0.00686054,0.00817179,0.00950625,0.01085188,0.0122145,0.01362578,0.01514366,0.01684314,0.01880564,0.02109756,0.0237676,0.02683182,0.03030649,0.0342276,0.03874555,0.04418374,0.05119304,0.06076553,0.07437854,0.09380666,0.12115065,0.15836926,0.20712933,0.26822017,0.34131335,0.42465413,0.51503564,0.60810697,0.69886817,0.78237651,0.85461023,0.91287236,0.95616228,0.98569093,0.99869001,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999)
This is the plot where I set up x-axis as log:
After some research, I have tried with Sigmoid function, as found on one of the posts (I can't add link since my reputation is not high enough). This is the code:
# sigmoid function definition
sigmoid = function(params, x) {
params[1] / (1 + exp(-params[2] * (x - params[3])))
}
# fitting code using nonlinear least square
fitmodel <- nls(y~a/(1 + exp(-b * (x-c))), start=list(a=1,b=.5,c=25))
# get the coefficients using the coef function
params=coef(fitmodel)
# asigning to y2 sigmoid function
y2 <- sigmoid(params,x)
# plotting y2 function
plot(y2,type="l")
# plotting data points
points(y)
This led me to some good fitting results (I don't know how to quantify this). But, when I look at the at the plot of Sigmuid fitting function I don't understand why is the S shape now happening in the range of x-values from 40 until 7 (looking at the S shape should be in x-values from 10 until 200).
Since I couldn't explain this behavior, I thought of trying Weibull equation for fitting, but so far I can't make the code running.
To sum up:
Do you have any idea why is the Sigmoid giving me that weird fitting?
Do you know any better two or three parameter equation for this fitting approach?
How could I determine the goodness of fit? Something like r^2?
# Data
df <- data.frame(x=c(0.01,0.011482,0.013183,0.015136,0.017378,0.019953,0.022909,0.026303,0.0302,0.034674,0.039811,0.045709,0.052481,0.060256,0.069183,0.079433,0.091201,0.104713,0.120226,0.138038,0.158489,0.18197,0.20893,0.239883,0.275423,0.316228,0.363078,0.416869,0.47863,0.549541,0.630957,0.724436,0.831764,0.954993,1.096478,1.258925,1.44544,1.659587,1.905461,2.187762,2.511886,2.884031,3.311311,3.801894,4.365158,5.011872,5.754399,6.606934,7.585776,8.709636,10,11.481536,13.182567,15.135612,17.378008,19.952623,22.908677,26.30268,30.199517,34.673685,39.810717,45.708819,52.480746,60.255959,69.183097,79.432823,91.201084,104.712855,120.226443,138.038426,158.489319,181.970086,208.929613,239.883292,275.42287,316.227766,363.078055,416.869383,478.630092,549.540874,630.957344,724.43596,831.763771,954.992586,1096.478196),
y=c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.00044816,0.00127554,0.00221488,0.00324858,0.00438312,0.00559138,0.00686054,0.00817179,0.00950625,0.01085188,0.0122145,0.01362578,0.01514366,0.01684314,0.01880564,0.02109756,0.0237676,0.02683182,0.03030649,0.0342276,0.03874555,0.04418374,0.05119304,0.06076553,0.07437854,0.09380666,0.12115065,0.15836926,0.20712933,0.26822017,0.34131335,0.42465413,0.51503564,0.60810697,0.69886817,0.78237651,0.85461023,0.91287236,0.95616228,0.98569093,0.99869001,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999))
# sigmoid function definition
sigmoid = function(x, a, b, c) {
a * exp(-b * exp(-c * x))
}
# fitting code using nonlinear least square
fitmodel <- nls(y ~ sigmoid(x, a, b, c), start=list(a=1,b=.5,c=-2), data = df)
# plotting y2 function
plot(df$x, predict(fitmodel),type="l", log = "x")
# plotting data points
points(df)
The function I used is the Gompertz function and this blog post explains why R² shouldn't be used with nonlinear fits and offers an alternative.
After going through different functions and different data-sets I have found the best solution that gives the answers to all of my questions posted. The code is as it follows for the data-set stated in question: df <- data.frame(x=c(0.01,0.011482,0.013183,0.015136,0.017378,0.019953,0.022909,0.026303,0.0302,0.034674,0.039811,0.045709,0.052481,0.060256,0.069183,0.079433,0.091201,0.104713,0.120226,0.138038,0.158489,0.18197,0.20893,0.239883,0.275423,0.316228,0.363078,0.416869,0.47863,0.549541,0.630957,0.724436,0.831764,0.954993,1.096478,1.258925,1.44544,1.659587,1.905461,2.187762,2.511886,2.884031,3.311311,3.801894,4.365158,5.011872,5.754399,6.606934,7.585776,8.709636,10,11.481536,13.182567,15.135612,17.378008,19.952623,22.908677,26.30268,30.199517,34.673685,39.810717,45.708819,52.480746,60.255959,69.183097,79.432823,91.201084,104.712855,120.226443,138.038426,158.489319,181.970086,208.929613,239.883292,275.42287,316.227766,363.078055,416.869383,478.630092,549.540874,630.957344,724.43596,831.763771,954.992586,1096.478196), y=c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.00044816,0.00127554,0.00221488,0.00324858,0.00438312,0.00559138,0.00686054,0.00817179,0.00950625,0.01085188,0.0122145,0.01362578,0.01514366,0.01684314,0.01880564,0.02109756,0.0237676,0.02683182,0.03030649,0.0342276,0.03874555,0.04418374,0.05119304,0.06076553,0.07437854,0.09380666,0.12115065,0.15836926,0.20712933,0.26822017,0.34131335,0.42465413,0.51503564,0.60810697,0.69886817,0.78237651,0.85461023,0.91287236,0.95616228,0.98569093,0.99869001,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999,0.99999999)) library(drc) fm <- drm(y ~ x, data = df, fct = G.3()) #The Gompertz model G.3() plot(fm) #Gompertz Coefficients and residual standard error summary(fm) The plot after fitting
R: How to read Nomograms to predict the desired variable
I am using Rstudio. I have created nomograms using function nomogram from package rms using following code (copied from the example code of the documentation):
library(rms)
n <- 1000 # define sample size
set.seed(17) # so can reproduce the results
age <- rnorm(n, 50, 10)
blood.pressure <- rnorm(n, 120, 15)
cholesterol <- rnorm(n, 200, 25)
sex <- factor(sample(c('female','male'), n,TRUE))
# Specify population model for log odds that Y=1
L <- .4*(sex=='male') + .045*(age-50) +
(log(cholesterol - 10)-5.2)*(-2*(sex=='female') + 2*(sex=='male'))
# Simulate binary y to have Prob(y=1) = 1/[1+exp(-L)]
y <- ifelse(runif(n) < plogis(L), 1, 0)
ddist <- datadist(age, blood.pressure, cholesterol, sex)
options(datadist='ddist')
f <- lrm(y ~ lsp(age,50)+sex*rcs(cholesterol,4)+blood.pressure)
nom <- nomogram(f, fun=function(x)1/(1+exp(-x)), # or fun=plogis
fun.at=c(.001,.01,.05,seq(.1,.9,by=.1),.95,.99,.999),
funlabel="Risk of Death")
#Instead of fun.at, could have specified fun.lp.at=logit of
#sequence above - faster and slightly more accurate
plot(nom, xfrac=.45)
Result:
This code produces a nomogram but there is no line connecting each scale (called isopleth) to help predict the desired variable ("Risk of Death") from the plot. Usually, nomograms have the isopleth for prediction (example from wikipedia). But here, how do I predict the variable value?
EDIT:
From the documentation:
The nomogram does not have lines representing sums, but it has a
reference line for reading scoring points (default range 0--100). Once
the reader manually totals the points, the predicted values can be
read at the bottom.
I don't understand this. It seems that predicting is supposed to be done without the isopleth, from the scale of points. but how? Can someone please elaborate with this example on how I can read the nomograms to predict the desired variable? Thanks a lot!
EDIT 2 (FYI):
In the description of the bounty, I am talking about the isopleth. When starting the bounty, I did not know that nomogram function does not provide isopleth and has points scale instead.
From the documentation, the nomogram is used to manualy obtain prediction: In the top of the plot (over Total points) you draw a vertical line for each of the variables of your patient (for example age=40, cholesterol=220 ( and sex=male ), blood.pressure=172) then you sum up the three values you read on the Points scale (40+60+3=103) to obtain Total Points. Finally you draw a vertical line on the Total Points scale (103) to read the Risk of death (0.55).
These are regression nomograms, and work in a different way to classic nomograms. A classic nomogram will perform a full calculation. For these nomograms you drop a line from each predictor to the scale at the bottom and add your results. The only way to have a classic 'isopleth' nomogram working on a regression model would be 1 have just two predictors or 2 have a complex multi- step nomogram.
Solution of varying coefficients ODE
I have a set of observed raw data and use 2nd order ODE to fit the data
y''+b1(t)y'+b0(t)y = 0
The b1 and b0 are time-dependent and I use principal differential analysis(PDA) (R-package: fda, function: pda.fd)to get the estimate of b1(t) and b0(t) .
To check the validity of the estimates of b1(t) and b0(t), I use collocation method (R-package bvpSolve, function:bvpcol) to get the numerical solution of the ODE and compare the solution with the smoothing curve fitting of the raw data.
My question is that my numerical solution from bvpcol can caputure the shape of the fitting curve but not for the value of the function. There are different in term of some constant multiples.
(Since I am not allowed to post images,please see the link for figure)
See the figure of my output. The gray dot is my raw data, the red line is Fourier expansion of the raw data, the green line is numerical solution of bvpcol function and the blue line the green-line/1.62. We can see the green line can capture the shape but with values that are constant times of fourier expansion.
I fit several other data and have similar situation but different constant. I am wondering it is the problem of numerical solution of ODE or some other reasons and how to solve this problem to get a good accordance between numerical solution(green) and true Fourier expansion?
Any help and idea is appreciated!
Here is a raw data and code:
RData is here
library(fda)
library(bvpSolve)
# load the data
load('y.RData')
tvec = 1:length(y)
tvec = (tvec-min(tvec))/(max(tvec)-min(tvec))
# create basis
fbasis = create.fourier.basis(c(0,1),nbasis=nbasis)
bbasis = create.bspline.basis(c(0,1),norder=8,nbasis=47)
bfdPar = fdPar(bbasis)
yfd = smooth.basis(tvec,y,fbasis)$fd
yfdlist = list(yfd)
bwtlist = rep(list(bfdPar),2)
# PDA fit
bwt = pda.fd(yfdlist,bwtlist)$bwtlist
# output of estimated coefficients
beta0.fd<-bwt[[1]]$fd
beta1.fd<-bwt[[2]]$fd
# define the vary-coef function in terms of t
fbeta0<-function(t)eval.fd(t,beta0.fd)
fbeta1<-function(t)eval.fd(t,beta1.fd)
# define 2nd order ODE
fun2 <- function(t,y,pars) {
with(as.list(c(y,pars)),{
beta0 = pars[[1]];
beta1 = pars[[2]];
dy1 = y[2]
dy2 = -beta1(t)*y[2]-beta0(t)*y[1]
return(list(c(dy1,dy2)))
})
}
# BVP
yinit<-c(p1[1],NA)
yend<-c(p1[length(p1)],NA)
t<-seq(tvec[1],tvec[length(tvec)],0.005)
col<-bvpcol(yini=yinit,yend=yend,x=t,func=fun2,parms=c(fbeta0,fbeta1),atol=1e-5,islin=T)
# plot output
plot(col[,1],col[,2],col='green',type='l')
points(tvec,p1,col='darkgray')
lines(yfd,col='red',lwd=2)
lines(col[,1],col[,2],col='green',type='l')
lines(col[,1],col[,2]/1.62,col='blue',type='l',lwd=2,lty=4)
legend('topleft',col=c('green','darkgray','red','blue'),
legend=c('ODE solution','raw data','basis curve fitting','ODE solution/1.62'),lty=1)
Extracting the Model Object in R from str()
I have a logit model object fit using glm2. The predictors are continuous and time varying so I am using basis splines. When I predict(FHlogit, foo..,) the model object it provides a prediction. All is well. Now, what I would like to do is extract the part of FHLogit and the basis matrix the provides the prediction. I do not want to extract information about the model from str(FHLogit) I am trying to extract the part that says Beta * Predictor = 2. So, I can manipulate the basis matrix for each predictor
I don't think using basis splines will affect this. If so, please provide a reproducible example. Here's a simple case: df1 <- data.frame(y=c(0,1,0,1), x1=seq(4), x2=c(1,3,2,6)) library(glm2) g1 <- glm2(y ~ x1 + x2, data=df1) ### default for type is "link" > stats::predict.glm(g1, type="link") 1 2 3 4 0.23809524 0.66666667 -0.04761905 1.14285714 Now, being unsure how these no.s were arrived at we can look at the source for the above, with predict.glm. We can see that type="link" is the simplest case, returning pred <- object$fitted.values # object is g1 in this case These values are the predictions resulting from the original data * the coefficients, which we can verify with e.g. all.equal(unname(predict.glm(g1, type="link")[1]), unname(coef(g1)[1] + coef(g1)[2]*df1[1, 2] + coef(g1)[3]*df1[1, 3]))
Plot "regression line" from multiple regression in R
I ran a multiple regression with several continuous predictors, a few of which came out significant, and I'd like to create a scatterplot or scatter-like plot of my DV against one of the predictors, including a "regression line". How can I do this? My plot looks like this D = my.data; plot( D$probCategorySame, D$posttestScore ) If it were simple regression, I could add a regression line like this: lmSimple <- lm( posttestScore ~ probCategorySame, data=D ) abline( lmSimple ) But my actual model is like this: lmMultiple <- lm( posttestScore ~ pretestScore + probCategorySame + probDataRelated + practiceAccuracy + practiceNumTrials, data=D ) I would like to add a regression line that reflects the coefficient and intercept from the actual model instead of the simplified one. I think I'd be happy to assume mean values for all other predictors in order to do this, although I'm ready to hear advice to the contrary. This might make no difference, but I'll mention just in case, the situation is complicated slightly by the fact that I probably will not want to plot the original data. Instead, I'd like to plot mean values of the DV for binned values of the predictor, like so: D[,'probCSBinned'] = cut( my.data$probCategorySame, as.numeric( seq( 0,1,0.04 ) ), include.lowest=TRUE, right=FALSE, labels=FALSE ) D = aggregate( posttestScore~probCSBinned, data=D, FUN=mean ) plot( D$probCSBinned, D$posttestScore ) Just because it happens to look much cleaner for my data when I do it this way.
To plot the individual terms in a linear or generalised linear model (ie, fit with lm or glm), use termplot. No need for binning or other manipulation. # plot everything on one page par(mfrow=c(2,3)) termplot(lmMultiple) # plot individual term par(mfrow=c(1,1)) termplot(lmMultiple, terms="preTestScore")
You need to create a vector of x-values in the domain of your plot and predict their corresponding y-values from your model. To do this, you need to inject this vector into a dataframe comprised of variables that match those in your model. You stated that you are OK with keeping the other variables fixed at their mean values, so I have used that approach in my solution. Whether or not the x-values you are predicting are actually legal given the other values in your plot should probably be something you consider when setting this up.
Without sample data I can't be sure this will work exactly for you, so I apologize if there are any bugs below, but this should at least illustrate the approach.
# Setup
xmin = 0; xmax=10 # domain of your plot
D = my.data
plot( D$probCategorySame, D$posttestScore, xlim=c(xmin,xmax) )
lmMultiple <- lm( posttestScore ~ pretestScore + probCategorySame + probDataRelated + practiceAccuracy + practiceNumTrials, data=D )
# create a dummy dataframe where all variables = their mean value for each record
# except the variable we want to plot, which will vary incrementally over the
# domain of the plot. We need this object to get the predicted values we
# want to plot.
N=1e4
means = colMeans(D)
dummyDF = t(as.data.frame(means))
for(i in 2:N){dummyDF=rbind(dummyDF,means)} # There's probably a more elegant way to do this.
xv=seq(xmin,xmax, length.out=N)
dummyDF$probCSBinned = xv
# if this gives you a warning about "Coercing LHS to list," use bracket syntax:
#dummyDF[,k] = xv # where k is the column index of the variable `posttestScore`
# Getting and plotting predictions over our dummy data.
yv=predict(lmMultiple, newdata=subset(dummyDF, select=c(-posttestScore)))
lines(xv, yv)
Look at the Predict.Plot function in the TeachingDemos package for one option to plot one predictor vs. the response at a given value of the other predictors.