I run a meta analysis and use the metafor library to calculate fisher z transformed values from correlations.
>meta1 <- escalc(ri=TESTR, ni=N, measure="ZCOR", data=subdata2)
As some of the studies I include in my meta-analysis, overlap in samples (i.e. in Study XY, 5 effect-sizes are reported from the same N), I need to calculate means of the standardized z-values. To indicate overlapping samples, I gave all effect sizes IDs (in Excel) which are equal if the samples overlap.
To run the final metaanalysis, I would like R to sum the standardized effect sizes from IDs and calculate means for the final metaanalysis.
So the idea is:
IF Effect_SIZE_ID (a variable) is similar in two lines of my df, then sum both effect sizes and divide it by two (calculate the mean). Provide this result in a new column.
As I am a full newbie, please let me know if you require further specification!
Thank you so much in advance.
LEon
Have a look at the summaryBy command in the doBy package.
mymean <- summaryBy(SD_effect ~ ID, FUN = mean, data = data)
Should work in general (if you provide some sample data it is easy to check if that does what you need).
Related
I'm trying to understand the definition of scale that R provides. I have data (mydata) that I want to make a heat map with, and there is a VERY strong positive skew. I've created a heatmap with a dendrogram for both scale(mydata) and log(my data), and the dendrograms are different for both. Why? What does it mean to scale my data, versus log transform my data? And which would be more appropriate if I want to look at the dendrogram illustrating the relationship between the columns of my data?
Thank you for any help! I've read the definitions but they are whooping over my head.
log simply takes the logarithm (base e, by default) of each element of the vector.
scale, with default settings, will calculate the mean and standard deviation of the entire vector, then "scale" each element by those values by subtracting the mean and dividing by the sd. (If you use scale(x, scale=FALSE), it will only subtract the mean but not divide by the std deviation.)
Note that this will give you the same values
set.seed(1)
x <- runif(7)
# Manually scaling
(x - mean(x)) / sd(x)
scale(x)
It provides nothing else but a standardization of the data. The values it creates are known under several different names, one of them being z-scores ("Z" because the normal distribution is also known as the "Z distribution").
More can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score
This is a late addition but I was looking for information on the scale function myself and though it might help somebody else as well.
To modify the response from Ricardo Saporta a little bit.
Scaling is not done using standard deviation, at least not in version 3.6.1 of R, I base this on "Becker, R. (2018). The new S language. CRC Press." and my own experimentation.
X.man.scaled <- X/sqrt(sum(X^2)/(length(X)-1))
X.aut.scaled <- scale(X, center = F)
The result of these rows are exactly the same, I show it without centering because of simplicity.
I would respond in a comment but did not have enough reputation.
I thought I would contribute by providing a concrete example of the practical use of the scale function. Say you have 3 test scores (Math, Science, and English) that you want to compare. Maybe you may even want to generate a composite score based on each of the 3 tests for each observation. Your data could look as as thus:
student_id <- seq(1,10)
math <- c(502,600,412,358,495,512,410,625,573,522)
science <- c(95,99,80,82,75,85,80,95,89,86)
english <- c(25,22,18,15,20,28,15,30,27,18)
df <- data.frame(student_id,math,science,english)
Obviously it would not make sense to compare the means of these 3 scores as the scale of the scores are vastly different. By scaling them however, you have more comparable scoring units:
z <- scale(df[,2:4],center=TRUE,scale=TRUE)
You could then use these scaled results to create a composite score. For instance, average the values and assign a grade based on the percentiles of this average. Hope this helped!
Note: I borrowed this example from the book "R In Action". It's a great book! Would definitely recommend.
I do have a script in R that provides me predictions for football matches.
It uses a Poisson Distribution formula to find the results that are most likely to happen in a match, and working on them, u can find who wins or lose (if you sum the probabilities for 1-0,2-0,2-1, etc... u find the chance of winning for team1, and so on...)
What I do need is to identify the 2 highest values inside the poisson distribution table and their relative "fathers".
I mean, as you see in the pic here I should identify 0.08652817 and 0.07346077 and thei relative "fathers" (3-2 and 4-2)
So the script should provide something like
1°: 0,0865 (3-2)
2°: 0,073 (4-2)
I tried using
max(match, na.rm=T)
but obviously it just shows 0,0865 and not it's "father" (3-2)
I do need the same also for the second highest value.
What should I do?
using the packages dplyr and purrr:
m <- matrix(ncol=7, nrow=7, runif(49)) #Fake data that look like your probabilities
d <- expand.grid(home=1:7, away=1:7) #data.frame with all possible outcomes
d$prob <- purrr::pmap_dbl(d, function(home, away){m[home,away]})
dplyr::top_n(d, 3, prob)
I would appreciate some input in this a lot!
I have data for 5 time series (an example of 1 step in the series is in the plot below), where each step in the series is a vertical profile of species sightings in the ocean which were investigated 6h apart. All 5 steps are spaced vertically by 0.1m (and the 6h in time).
What I want to do is calculate the multivariate cross-correlation between all series in order to find out at which lag the profiles are most correlated and stable over time.
Profile example:
I find the documentation in R on that not so great, so what I did so far is use the package MTS with the ccm function to create cross correlation matrices. However, the interpretation of the figures is rather difficult with sparse documentation. I would appreciate some help with that a lot.
Data example:
http://pastebin.com/embed_iframe.php?i=8gdAeGP4
Save in file cross_correlation_stack.csv or change as you wish.
library(dplyr)
library(MTS)
library(data.table)
d1 <- file.path('cross_correlation_stack.csv')
d2 = read.csv(d1)
# USING package MTS
mod1<-ccm(d2,lag=1000,level=T)
#USING base R
acf(d2,lag.max=1000)
# MQ plot also from MTS package
mq(d2,lag=1000)
Which produces this (the ccm command):
This:
and this:
In parallel, the acf command from above produces this:
My question now is if somebody can give some input in whether I am going in the right direction or are there better suited packages and commands?
Since the default figures don't get any titles etc. What am I looking at, specifically in the ccm figures?
The ACF command was proposed somewhere, but can I use it here? In it's documentation it says ... calculates autocovariance or autocorrelation... I assume this is not what I want. But then again it's the only command that seems to work multivariate. I am confused.
The plot with the significance values shows that after a lag of 150 (15 meters) the p values increase. How would you interpret that regarding my data? 0.1 intervals of species sightings and many lags up to 100-150 are significant? Would that mean something like that peaks in sightings are stable over the 5 time-steps on a scale of 150 lags aka 15 meters?
In either way it would be nice if somebody who worked with this before can explain what I am looking at! Any input is highly appreciated!
You can use the base R function ccf(), which will estimate the cross-correlation function between any two variables x and y. However, it only works on vectors, so you'll have to loop over the columns in d1. Something like:
cc <- vector("list",choose(dim(d1)[2],2))
par(mfrow=c(ceiling(choose(dim(d1)[2],2)/2),2))
cnt <- 1
for(i in 1:(dim(d1)[2]-1)) {
for(j in (i+1):dim(d1)[2]) {
cc[[cnt]] <- ccf(d1[,i],d1[,j],main=paste0("Cross-correlation of ",colnames(d1)[i]," with ",colnames(d1)[j]))
cnt <- cnt + 1
}
}
This will plot each of the estimated CCF's and store the estimates in the list cc. It is important to remember that the lag-k value returned by ccf(x,y) is an estimate of the correlation between x[t+k] and y[t].
All of that said, however, the ccf is only defined for data that are more-or-less normally distributed, but your data are clearly overdispersed with all of those zeroes. Therefore, lacking some adequate transformation, you should really look into other metrics of "association" such as the mutual information as estimated from entropy. I suggest checking out the R packages entropy and infotheo.
I'm trying to understand the definition of scale that R provides. I have data (mydata) that I want to make a heat map with, and there is a VERY strong positive skew. I've created a heatmap with a dendrogram for both scale(mydata) and log(my data), and the dendrograms are different for both. Why? What does it mean to scale my data, versus log transform my data? And which would be more appropriate if I want to look at the dendrogram illustrating the relationship between the columns of my data?
Thank you for any help! I've read the definitions but they are whooping over my head.
log simply takes the logarithm (base e, by default) of each element of the vector.
scale, with default settings, will calculate the mean and standard deviation of the entire vector, then "scale" each element by those values by subtracting the mean and dividing by the sd. (If you use scale(x, scale=FALSE), it will only subtract the mean but not divide by the std deviation.)
Note that this will give you the same values
set.seed(1)
x <- runif(7)
# Manually scaling
(x - mean(x)) / sd(x)
scale(x)
It provides nothing else but a standardization of the data. The values it creates are known under several different names, one of them being z-scores ("Z" because the normal distribution is also known as the "Z distribution").
More can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score
This is a late addition but I was looking for information on the scale function myself and though it might help somebody else as well.
To modify the response from Ricardo Saporta a little bit.
Scaling is not done using standard deviation, at least not in version 3.6.1 of R, I base this on "Becker, R. (2018). The new S language. CRC Press." and my own experimentation.
X.man.scaled <- X/sqrt(sum(X^2)/(length(X)-1))
X.aut.scaled <- scale(X, center = F)
The result of these rows are exactly the same, I show it without centering because of simplicity.
I would respond in a comment but did not have enough reputation.
I thought I would contribute by providing a concrete example of the practical use of the scale function. Say you have 3 test scores (Math, Science, and English) that you want to compare. Maybe you may even want to generate a composite score based on each of the 3 tests for each observation. Your data could look as as thus:
student_id <- seq(1,10)
math <- c(502,600,412,358,495,512,410,625,573,522)
science <- c(95,99,80,82,75,85,80,95,89,86)
english <- c(25,22,18,15,20,28,15,30,27,18)
df <- data.frame(student_id,math,science,english)
Obviously it would not make sense to compare the means of these 3 scores as the scale of the scores are vastly different. By scaling them however, you have more comparable scoring units:
z <- scale(df[,2:4],center=TRUE,scale=TRUE)
You could then use these scaled results to create a composite score. For instance, average the values and assign a grade based on the percentiles of this average. Hope this helped!
Note: I borrowed this example from the book "R In Action". It's a great book! Would definitely recommend.
I am trying to generate a random set of numbers that exactly mirror a data set that I have (to test it). The dataset consists of 5 variables that are all correlated with different means and standard deviations as well as ranges (they are likert scales added together to form 1 variable). I have been able to get mvrnorm from the MASS package to create a dataset that replicated the correlation matrix with the observed number of observations (after 500,000+ iterations), and I can easily reassign means and std. dev. through z-score transformation, but I still have specific values within each variable vector that are far above or below the possible range of the scale whose score I wish to replicate.
Any suggestions how to fix the range appropriately?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
To generate a sample that does "exactly mirror" the original dataset, you need to make sure that the marginal distributions and the dependence structure of the sample matches those of the original dataset.
A simple way to achieve this is with resampling
my.data <- matrix(runif(1000, -1, 2), nrow = 200, ncol = 5) # Some dummy data
my.ind <- sample(1:nrow(my.data), nrow(my.data), replace = TRUE)
my.sample <- my.data[my.ind, ]
This will ensure that the margins and the dependence structure of the sample (closely) matches those of the original data.
An alternative is to use a parametric model for the margins and/or the dependence structure (copula). But as staded by #dickoa, this will require serious modeling effort.
Note that by using a multivariate normal distribution, you are (implicity) assuming that the dependence structure of the original data is the Gaussian copula. This is a strong assumption, and it would need to be validated beforehand.