I am using the mlogit package in program R. I have converted my data from its original wide format to long format. Here is a sample of the converted data.frame which I refer to as 'long_perp'. All of the independent variables are individual specific. I have 4258 unique observations in the data-set.
date_id act2 grp.bin pdist ship sea avgknots shore day location chid alt
4.dive 40707_004 TRUE 2 2.250 second light 14.06809 2.30805 12 Lower 4 dive
4.fly 40707_004 FALSE 2 2.250 second light 14.06809 2.30805 12 Lower 4 fly
4.none 40707_004 FALSE 2 2.250 second light 14.06809 2.30805 12 Lower 4 none
5.dive 40707_006 FALSE 2 0.000 second light 15.12650 2.53312 12 Lower 5 dive
5.fly 40707_006 TRUE 2 0.000 second light 15.12650 2.53312 12 Lower 5 fly
5.none 40707_006 FALSE 2 0.000 second light 15.12650 2.53312 12 Lower 5 none
6.dive 40707_007 FALSE 1 1.995 second light 14.02101 2.01680 12 Lower 6 dive
6.fly 40707_007 TRUE 1 1.995 second light 14.02101 2.01680 12 Lower 6 fly
6.none 40707_007 FALSE 1 1.995 second light 14.02101 2.01680 12 Lower 6 none
'act2' is the dependent variable and consists of choices a bird floating on the water could make when approached by a ship; fly, dive, or none. I am interested in how these probabilities relate to the remaining independent variables in the data.frame, i.e. perpendicular distance to the ship path (pdist) sea conditions (sea), speed (avgknots), distance to shore (shore) etc. The independent variables are made of dichotomous, factor and continuous variables.
I ran two multinomial logit models, one including all the choice options and another including only a subset. I then compared these models with the hmftest() function to test for the IIA assumption. The results were confusing the say the least. I will include the codes for the two models and the test output (in case I am miss-specifying the models in the code).
# model including all choice options (fly, dive, none)
mod.1 <- mlogit(act2 ~ 1 | pdist + as.factor(grp.bin) +
as.factor(sea) + avgknots + shore + as.factor(location),long_perp ,
reflevel = 'none')
# model including only a subset of choice options (fly, dive)
mod.alt <- mlogit(act2 ~ 1 | pdist + as.factor(grp.bin) +
as.factor(sea) + avgknots + shore + as.factor(location),long_perp ,
reflevel = 'none', alt.subset = c("fly","dive"))
# IIA test
hmftest(mod.1, mod.alt)
# output
Hausman-McFadden test
data: long_perp
chisq = -968.7303, df = 7, p-value = 1
alternative hypothesis: IIA is rejected
As you can see the chisquare statistic is negative! I assume I am either 1. doing something wrong, or 2. IIA is violated. This result holds true for choice subset (fly, dive), but the IIA assumption is upheld with choice subset (none, dive)? This confuses me.
Next I tried to formulate a nested model as a way to relax the IIA assumption. I nested the choices as nest1 = none, nest2 = fly, dive. This makes sense to me as this seems like a logical break, the bird decides to react or not then decides which reaction to make.
I am unclear on how to run the nested logit models (even after reading the two vignettes for mlogit, Croissant vignette and Train vignette).
When I run my analysis following the example in the Croissant vignette I get the following error.
nested.1 <- mlogit(act2 ~ 0 | pdist + as.factor(grp.bin) + as.factor(ship) +
as.factor(sea) + avgknots + shore + as.factor(location),
long_perp , reflevel="none",nests = list(noact = "none",
react = c("dive","fly")), unscaled = TRUE)
# Error in solve.default(crossprod(attr(x, "gradi")[, !fixed])) :
Lapack routine dgesv: system is exactly singular: U[19,19] = 0
I have read a bit about this error message and it may occur because of complete separation. I have looked at some tables of the data and do not believe this is happening as I have 4,000+ observations and only one factor variable with more than 2 levels (it has 3).
Help on these specific problems is greatly appreciated but I am also open to alternate analyses that I can use to answer my question. I am mainly interested in the probability of flying as a function of perpendicular distance to the ships path.
Thanks, Tim
To get a positive chi-sq, change the code as follows:
alt.subset = c("none", "fly")
that is, the ref level will be in the subset too. It may help, though the P-value may not change much.
Related
I'm trying to make an adjusted survival curve based on a weighted cox regression performed on a case cohort data set in R, but unfortunately, I can't make it work. I was therefore hoping that some of you may be able to figure it out why it isn't working.
In order to illustrate the problem, I have used (and adjusted a bit) the example from the "Package 'survival'" document, which means im working with:
data("nwtco")
subcoh <- nwtco$in.subcohort
selccoh <- with(nwtco, rel==1|subcoh==1)
ccoh.data <- nwtco[selccoh,]
ccoh.data$subcohort <- subcoh[selccoh]
ccoh.data$age <- ccoh.data$age/12 # Age in years
fit.ccSP <- cch(Surv(edrel, rel) ~ stage + histol + age,
data =ccoh.data,subcoh = ~subcohort, id=~seqno, cohort.size=4028, method="LinYing")
The data set is looking like this:
seqno instit histol stage study rel edrel age in.subcohort subcohort
4 4 2 1 4 3 0 6200 2.333333 TRUE TRUE
7 7 1 1 4 3 1 324 3.750000 FALSE FALSE
11 11 1 2 2 3 0 5570 2.000000 TRUE TRUE
14 14 1 1 2 3 0 5942 1.583333 TRUE TRUE
17 17 1 1 2 3 1 960 7.166667 FALSE FALSE
22 22 1 1 2 3 1 93 2.666667 FALSE FALSE
Then, I'm trying to illustrate the effect of stage in an adjusted survival curve, using the ggadjustedcurves-function from the survminer package:
library(suvminer)
ggadjustedcurves(fit.ccSP, variable = ccoh.data$stage, data = ccoh.data)
#Error in survexp(as.formula(paste("~", variable)), data = ndata, ratetable = fit) :
# Invalid rate table
But unfortunately, this is not working. Can anyone figure out why? And can this somehow be fixed or done in another way?
Essentially, I'm looking for a way to graphically illustrate the effect of a continuous variable in a weighted cox regression performed on a case cohort data set, so I would, generally, also be interested in hearing if there are other alternatives than the adjusted survival curves?
Two reasons it is throwing errors.
The ggadjcurves function is not being given a coxph.object, which it's halp page indicated was the designed first object.
The specification of the variable argument is incorrect. The correct method of specifying a column is with a length-1 character vector that matches one of the names in the formula. You gave it a vector whose value was a vector of length 1154.
This code succeeds:
fit.ccSP <- coxph(Surv(edrel, rel) ~ stage + histol + age,
data =ccoh.data)
ggadjustedcurves(fit.ccSP, variable = 'stage', data = ccoh.data)
It might not answer your desires, but it does answer the "why-error" part of your question. You might want to review the methods used by Therneau, Cynthia S Crowson, and Elizabeth J Atkinson in their paper on adjusted curves:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survival/vignettes/adjcurve.pdf
I have the following data
Species <- c(rep('A', 47), rep('B', 23))
Value<- c(3.8711, 3.6961, 3.9984, 3.8641, 4.0863, 4.0531, 3.9164, 3.8420, 3.7023, 3.9764, 4.0504, 4.2305,
4.1365, 4.1230, 3.9840, 3.9297, 3.9945, 4.0057, 4.2313, 3.7135, 4.3070, 3.6123, 4.0383, 3.9151,
4.0561, 4.0430, 3.9178, 4.0980, 3.8557, 4.0766, 4.3301, 3.9102, 4.2516, 4.3453, 4.3008, 4.0020,
3.9336, 3.5693, 4.0475, 3.8697, 4.1418, 4.0914, 4.2086, 4.1344, 4.2734, 3.6387, 2.4088, 3.8016,
3.7439, 3.8328, 4.0293, 3.9398, 3.9104, 3.9008, 3.7805, 3.8668, 3.9254, 3.7980, 3.7766, 3.7275,
3.8680, 3.6597, 3.7348, 3.7357, 3.9617, 3.8238, 3.8211, 3.4176, 3.7910, 4.0617)
D<-data.frame(Species,Value)
I have the two species A and B and want to find out which is the best cutoffpoint for value to determine the species.
I found the following question:
R: Determine the threshold that maximally separates two groups based on a continuous variable?
and followed the accepted answer to find the best value with the dose.p function from the MASS package. I have several similar values and it worked for them, but not for the one given above (which is also the reason why i needed to include all 70 observations here).
D$Species_b<-ifelse(D$Species=="A",0,1)
my.glm<-glm(Species_b~Value, data = D, family = binomial)
dose.p(my.glm,p=0.5)
gives me 3.633957 as threshold:
Dose SE
p = 0.5: 3.633957 0.1755291
this results in 45 correct assignments. however, if I look at the data, it is obvious that this is not the best value. By trial and error I found that 3.8 gives me 50 correct assignments, which is obviously better.
Why does the function work for other values, but not for this one? Am I missing an obvious mistake? Or is there maybe a different/ better approach to solving my problem? I have several values I need to do this for, so I really do not want to just randomly test values until I find the best one.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I would typically use a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for this type of analysis. This allows a visual and numerical assessment of how the sensitivity and specificity of your cutoff changes as you adjust your threshold. This allows you to select the optimum threshold based on when the overall accuracy is optimum. For example, using pROC:
library(pROC)
species_roc <- roc(D$Species, D$Value)
We can get a measure of how good a discriminator Value is for predicting Species by examining the area under the curve:
auc(species_roc)
#> Area under the curve: 0.778
plot(species_roc)
and we can find out the optimum cut-off threshold like this:
coords(species_roc, x = "best")
#> threshold specificity sensitivity
#> 1 3.96905 0.6170213 0.9130435
We see that this threshold correctly identifies 50 cases:
table(Actual = D$Species, Predicted = c("A", "B")[1 + (D$Value < 3.96905)])
#> Predicted
#> Actual A B
#> A 29 18
#> B 2 21
I have a series of hazard-rates at two points (low and high point) in the curve with corresponding standard errors. I calculate the hazard-ratio by dividing the high point hazard-rate by the low point hazard-rate. This is the hratio column. Now in the next column I would like to show the probability (p-value) that the ratio is significantly different from 1 using the Wald-test.
I have tried doing this using the wald.test() from the aods3 package, but I keep getting an error messages. It seems that the code only allows for the comparison of two related regression models.
How would you go about doing this?
> wald
fit.low se.low fit.high se.high hratio
1 0.09387638 0.002597817 0.09530283 0.002800329 0.9850324
2 0.10941588 0.002870383 0.10831292 0.003061924 1.0101831
3 0.02549611 0.001054303 0.02857411 0.001368525 0.8922802
4 0.02818208 0.000917136 0.02871669 0.000936373 0.9813833
5 0.04857652 0.000554676 0.04897211 0.000568229 0.9919222
6 0.05121328 0.000565592 0.05142951 0.000554893 0.9957956
> library(aods3)
> wald$pv <- wald.test(b=wald$hratio)
Error in wald.test(b = wald$hratio) :
One of the arguments Terms or L must be used.
define L=NULL, Terms=NULL, Sigma = vcov(b)
I have been trying to compute Krippendorff's alpha statistic for a small dataset, but am able to get very different alpha scores for what is essentially the same case of agreement for my data.
In a rating scale of 1 to 5, two ratings of 4.5 vs 5 would be considered the same distance or amount of agreement as ratings of 4.5 vs 4, however I am getting drastically different results in both Cohens kappa and Krippendorff's alpha in r using the irr package.
Data and code:
x<-matrix(c(4.5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5),nrow=2)
y<-matrix(c(4.5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5),nrow=2)
kripp.alpha(x,"ordinal")
kripp.alpha(y,"ordinal")
Results:
> kripp.alpha(x,"ordinal")
Subjects = 4
Raters = 2
alpha = 0
> kripp.alpha(y,"ordinal")
Krippendorff's alpha
Subjects = 4
Raters = 2
alpha = 0.964
I am ultimately hoping to use Krippendorffs alpha as I would like to make comparison performance between 2 raters to a larger group of raters.
Any suggestions, guidance, or references would be greatly appreciated.
Double check your object names, or typos in your call. Both of these produce the same alpha value. kripp.alpha is not stochastic (the same input will produce the same result).
x<-matrix(c(4.5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5),nrow=2)
y<-matrix(c(4.5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5),nrow=2)
y_kripp_alpha <- irr:::kripp.alpha(y, "ordinal")
x_kripp_alpha <- irr:::kripp.alpha(x, "ordinal")
y_kripp_alpha$value == x_kripp_alpha$value
# [1] TRUE
And in fact, each of the components is the same.
My data frame looks like:
head(bush_status)
distance status count
0 endemic 844
1 exotic 8
5 native 3
10 endemic 5
15 endemic 4
20 endemic 3
The count data is non-normally distributed. I'm trying to fit a generalized additive model to my data in two ways so i can use anova to see if the p-value supports m2.
m1 <- gam(count ~ s(distance) + status, data=bush_status, family="nb")
m2 <- gam(count ~ s(distance, by=status) + status, data=bush_status, family="nb")
m1 works fine, but m2 sends the error message:
"Error in smoothCon(split$smooth.spec[[i]], data, knots, absorb.cons,
scale.penalty = scale.penalty, :
Can't find by variable"
This is pretty beyond me so if anyone could offer any advice that would be much appreciated!
From your comments it became clear that you passed a character variable to by in the smoother. You must pass a factor variable there. This has been a frequent gotcha for me too and I consider it a design flaw (because base R regression functions deal with character variables just fine).