I'm having some trouble using coxph(). I've two categorical variables:"tecnologia" and "pais", and I want to evaluate the possible interaction effect of "pais" on "tecnologia"."tecnologia" is a variable factor with 2 levels: gps and convencional. And "pais" as 2 levels: PT and ES. I have no idea why this warning keeps appearing.
Here's the code and the output:
cox_AC<-coxph(Surv(dados_temp$dias_seg,dados_temp$status)~tecnologia*pais,data=dados_temp)
Warning message:
In coxph(Surv(dados_temp$dias_seg, dados_temp$status) ~ tecnologia * :
X matrix deemed to be singular; variable 3
> cox_AC
Call:
coxph(formula = Surv(dados_temp$dias_seg, dados_temp$status) ~
tecnologia * pais, data = dados_temp)
coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p
tecnologiagps -0.152 0.859 0.400 -0.38 7e-01
paisPT 1.469 4.345 0.406 3.62 3e-04
tecnologiagps:paisPT NA NA 0.000 NA NA
Likelihood ratio test=23.8 on 2 df, p=6.82e-06 n= 127, number of events= 64
I'm opening another question about this subject, although I made a similar one some months ago, because I'm facing the same problem again, with other data. And this time I'm sure it's not a data related problem.
Can somebody help me?
Thank you
UPDATE:
The problem does not seem to be a perfect classification
> xtabs(~status+tecnologia,data=dados)
tecnologia
status conv doppler gps
0 39 6 24
1 30 3 34
> xtabs(~status+pais,data=dados)
pais
status ES PT
0 71 8
1 49 28
> xtabs(~tecnologia+pais,data=dados)
pais
tecnologia ES PT
conv 69 0
doppler 1 8
gps 30 28
Here's a simple example which seems to reproduce your problem:
> library(survival)
> (df1 <- data.frame(t1=seq(1:6),
s1=rep(c(0, 1), 3),
te1=c(rep(0, 3), rep(1, 3)),
pa1=c(0,0,1,0,0,0)
))
t1 s1 te1 pa1
1 1 0 0 0
2 2 1 0 0
3 3 0 0 1
4 4 1 1 0
5 5 0 1 0
6 6 1 1 0
> (coxph(Surv(t1, s1) ~ te1*pa1, data=df1))
Call:
coxph(formula = Surv(t1, s1) ~ te1 * pa1, data = df1)
coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p
te1 -23 9.84e-11 58208 -0.000396 1
pa1 -23 9.84e-11 100819 -0.000229 1
te1:pa1 NA NA 0 NA NA
Now lets look for 'perfect classification' like so:
> (xtabs( ~ s1+te1, data=df1))
te1
s1 0 1
0 2 1
1 1 2
> (xtabs( ~ s1+pa1, data=df1))
pa1
s1 0 1
0 2 1
1 3 0
Note that a value of 1 for pa1 exactly predicts having a status s1 equal to 0. That is to say, based on your data, if you know that pa1==1 then you can be sure than s1==0. Thus fitting Cox's model is not appropriate in this setting and will result in numerical errors.
This can be seen with
> coxph(Surv(t1, s1) ~ pa1, data=df1)
giving
Warning message:
In fitter(X, Y, strats, offset, init, control, weights = weights, :
Loglik converged before variable 1 ; beta may be infinite.
It's important to look at these cross tables before fitting models. Also it's worth starting with simpler models before considering those involving interactions.
If we add the interaction term to df1 manually like this:
> (df1 <- within(df1,
+ te1pa1 <- te1*pa1))
t1 s1 te1 pa1 te1pa1
1 1 0 0 0 0
2 2 1 0 0 0
3 3 0 0 1 0
4 4 1 1 0 0
5 5 0 1 0 0
6 6 1 1 0 0
Then check it with
> (xtabs( ~ s1+te1pa1, data=df1))
te1pa1
s1 0
0 3
1 3
We can see that it's a useless classifier, i.e. it does not help predict status s1.
When combining all 3 terms, the fitter does manage to produce a numerical value for te1 and pe1 even though pe1 is a perfect predictor as above. However a look at the values for the coefficients and their errors shows them to be implausible.
Edit #JMarcelino: If you look at the warning message from the first coxph model in the example, you'll see the warning message:
2: In coxph(Surv(t1, s1) ~ te1 * pa1, data = df1) :
X matrix deemed to be singular; variable 3
Which is likely the same error you're getting and is due to this problem of classification. Also, your third cross table xtabs(~ tecnologia+pais, data=dados) is not as important as the table of status by interaction term. You could add the interaction term manually first as in the example above then check the cross table. Or you could say:
> with(df1,
table(s1, pa1te1=pa1*te1))
pa1te1
s1 0
0 3
1 3
That said, I notice one of the cells in your third table has a zero (conv, PT) meaning you have no observations with this combination of predictors. This is going to cause problems when trying to fit.
In general, the outcome should be have some values for all levels of the predictors and the predictors should not classify the outcome as exactly all or nothing or 50/50.
Edit 2 #user75782131 Yes, generally speaking xtabs or a similar cross-table should be performed in models where the outcome and predictors are discrete i.e. have a limited no. of levels. If 'perfect classification' is present then a predictive model / regression may not be appropriate. This is true for example for logistic regression (outcome is binary) as well as Cox's model.
Related
I am trying to compute robust/cluster standard errors after using mlogit() to fit a Multinomial Logit (MNL) in a Discrete Choice problem. Unfortunately, I suspect I am having problems with it because I am using data in long format (this is a must in my case), and getting the error #Error in ef/X : non-conformable arrays after sandwich::vcovHC( , "HC0").
The Data
For illustration, please gently consider the following data. It represents data from 5 individuals (id_ind ) that choose among 3 alternatives (altern). Each of the five individuals chose three times; hence we have 15 choice situations (id_choice). Each alternative is represented by two generic attributes (x1 and x2), and the choices are registered in y (1 if selected, 0 otherwise).
df <- read.table(header = TRUE, text = "
id_ind id_choice altern x1 x2 y
1 1 1 1 1.586788801 0.11887832 1
2 1 1 2 -0.937965347 1.15742493 0
3 1 1 3 -0.511504401 -1.90667519 0
4 1 2 1 1.079365680 -0.37267925 0
5 1 2 2 -0.009203032 1.65150370 1
6 1 2 3 0.870474033 -0.82558651 0
7 1 3 1 -0.638604013 -0.09459502 0
8 1 3 2 -0.071679538 1.56879334 0
9 1 3 3 0.398263302 1.45735788 1
10 2 4 1 0.291413453 -0.09107974 0
11 2 4 2 1.632831160 0.92925495 0
12 2 4 3 -1.193272276 0.77092623 1
13 2 5 1 1.967624379 -0.16373709 1
14 2 5 2 -0.479859282 -0.67042130 0
15 2 5 3 1.109780885 0.60348187 0
16 2 6 1 -0.025834772 -0.44004183 0
17 2 6 2 -1.255129594 1.10928280 0
18 2 6 3 1.309493274 1.84247199 1
19 3 7 1 1.593558740 -0.08952151 0
20 3 7 2 1.778701074 1.44483791 1
21 3 7 3 0.643191170 -0.24761157 0
22 3 8 1 1.738820924 -0.96793288 0
23 3 8 2 -1.151429915 -0.08581901 0
24 3 8 3 0.606695064 1.06524268 1
25 3 9 1 0.673866953 -0.26136206 0
26 3 9 2 1.176959443 0.85005871 1
27 3 9 3 -1.568225496 -0.40002252 0
28 4 10 1 0.516456176 -1.02081089 1
29 4 10 2 -1.752854918 -1.71728381 0
30 4 10 3 -1.176101700 -1.60213536 0
31 4 11 1 -1.497779616 -1.66301234 0
32 4 11 2 -0.931117325 1.50128532 1
33 4 11 3 -0.455543630 -0.64370825 0
34 4 12 1 0.894843784 -0.69859139 0
35 4 12 2 -0.354902281 1.02834859 0
36 4 12 3 1.283785176 -1.18923098 1
37 5 13 1 -1.293772990 -0.73491317 0
38 5 13 2 0.748091387 0.07453705 1
39 5 13 3 -0.463585127 0.64802031 0
40 5 14 1 -1.946438667 1.35776140 0
41 5 14 2 -0.470448172 -0.61326604 1
42 5 14 3 1.478763383 -0.66490028 0
43 5 15 1 0.588240775 0.84448489 1
44 5 15 2 1.131731049 -1.51323232 0
45 5 15 3 0.212145247 -1.01804594 0
")
The problem
Consequently, we can fit an MNL using mlogit() and extract their robust variance-covariance as follows:
library(mlogit)
library(sandwich)
mo <- mlogit(formula = y ~ x1 + x2|0 ,
method ="nr",
data = df,
idx = c("id_choice", "altern"))
sandwich::vcovHC(mo, "HC0")
#Error in ef/X : non-conformable arrays
As we can see there is an error produced by sandwich::vcovHC, which says that ef/X is non-conformable. Where X <- model.matrix(x) and ef <- estfun(x, ...). After looking through the source code on the mirror on GitHub I spot the problem which comes from the fact that, given that the data is in long format, ef has dimensions 15 x 2 and X has 45 x 2.
My workaround
Given that the show must continue, I am computing the robust and cluster standard errors manually using some functions that I borrow from sandwich and I adjusted to accommodate the Stata's output.
> Robust Standard Errors
These lines are inspired on the sandwich::meat() function.
psi<- estfun(mo)
k <- NCOL(psi)
n <- NROW(psi)
rval <- (n/(n-1))* crossprod(as.matrix(psi))
vcov(mo) %*% rval %*% vcov(mo)
# x1 x2
# x1 0.23050261 0.09840356
# x2 0.09840356 0.12765662
Stata Equivalent
qui clogit y x1 x2 ,group(id_choice) r
mat li e(V)
symmetric e(V)[2,2]
y: y:
x1 x2
y:x1 .23050262
y:x2 .09840356 .12765662
> Clustered Standard Errors
Here, given that each individual answers 3 questions is highly likely that there is some degree of correlation among individuals; hence cluster corrections should be preferred in such situations. Below I compute the cluster correction in this case and I show the equivalence with the Stata output of clogit , cluster().
id_ind_collapsed <- df$id_ind[!duplicated(mo$model$idx$id_choice,)]
psi_2 <- rowsum(psi, group = id_ind_collapsed )
k_cluster <- NCOL(psi_2)
n_cluster <- NROW(psi_2)
rval_cluster <- (n_cluster/(n_cluster-1))* crossprod(as.matrix(psi_2))
vcov(mo) %*% rval_cluster %*% vcov(mo)
# x1 x2
# x1 0.1766707 0.1007703
# x2 0.1007703 0.1180004
Stata equivalent
qui clogit y x1 x2 ,group(id_choice) cluster(id_ind)
symmetric e(V)[2,2]
y: y:
x1 x2
y:x1 .17667075
y:x2 .1007703 .11800038
The Question:
I would like to accommodate my computations within the sandwich ecosystem, meaning not computing the matrices manually but actually using the sandwich functions. Is it possible to make it work with models in long format like the one described here? For example, providing the meat and bread objects directly to perform the computations? Thanks in advance.
PS: I noted that there is a dedicated bread function in sandwich for mlogit, but I could not spot something like meat for mlogit, but anyways I am probably missing something here...
Why vcovHC does not work for mlogit
The class of HC covariance estimators can just be applied in models with a single linear predictor where the score function aka estimating function is the product of so-called "working residuals" and a regressor matrix. This is explained in some detail in the Zeileis (2006) paper (see Equation 7), provided as vignette("sandwich-OOP", package = "sandwich") in the package. The ?vcovHC also pointed to this but did not explain it very well. I have improved this in the documentation at http://sandwich.R-Forge.R-project.org/reference/vcovHC.html now:
The function meatHC is the real work horse for estimating the meat of HC sandwich estimators - the default vcovHC method is a wrapper calling sandwich and bread. See Zeileis (2006) for more implementation details. The theoretical background, exemplified for the linear regression model, is described below and in Zeileis (2004). Analogous formulas are employed for other types of models, provided that they depend on a single linear predictor and the estimating functions can be represented as a product of “working residual” and regressor vector (Zeileis 2006, Equation 7).
This means that vcovHC() is not applicable to multinomial logit models as they generally use separate linear predictors for the separate response categories. Similarly, two-part or hurdle models etc. are not supported.
Basic "robust" sandwich covariance
Generally, for computing the basic Eicker-Huber-White sandwich covariance matrix estimator, the best strategy is to use the sandwich() function and not the vcovHC() function. The former works for any model with estfun() and bread() methods.
For linear models sandwich(..., adjust = FALSE) (default) and sandwich(..., adjust = TRUE) correspond to HC0 and HC1, respectively. In a model with n observations and k regression coefficients the former standardizes with 1/n and the latter with 1/(n-k).
Stata, however, divides by 1/(n-1) in logit models, see:
Different Robust Standard Errors of Logit Regression in Stata and R. To the best of my knowledge there is no clear theoretical reason for using specifically one or the other adjustment. And already in moderately large samples, this makes no difference anyway.
Remark: The adjustment with 1/(n-1) is not directly available in sandwich() as an option. However, coincidentally, it is the default in vcovCL() without specifying a cluster variable (i.e., treating each observation as a separate cluster). So this is a convenient "trick" if you want to get exactly the same results as Stata.
Clustered covariance
This can be computed "as usual" via vcovCL(..., cluster = ...). For mlogit models you just have to consider that the cluster variable just needs to be provided once (as opposed to stacked several times in long format).
Replicating Stata results
With the data and model from your post:
vcovCL(mo)
## x1 x2
## x1 0.23050261 0.09840356
## x2 0.09840356 0.12765662
vcovCL(mo, cluster = df$id_choice[1:15])
## x1 x2
## x1 0.1766707 0.1007703
## x2 0.1007703 0.1180004
I have produced a logistic regression model in R using the logistf function from the logistf package due to quasi-complete separation. I get the error message:
Error in solve.default(object$var[2:(object$df + 1), 2:(object$df + 1)]) :
system is computationally singular: reciprocal condition number = 3.39158e-17
The data is structured as shown below, though a lot of the data has been cut here. Numbers represent levels (i.e 1 = very low, 5 = very high) not count data. Variables OrdA to OrdH are ordered factors. The variable Binary is a factor.
OrdA OrdB OrdC OrdE OrdF OrdG OrdH Binary
1 3 4 1 1 2 1 1
2 3 4 5 1 3 1 1
1 3 2 5 2 4 1 0
1 1 1 1 3 1 2 0
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0
I have read here that this can be caused by multicollinearity, but have tested this and it is not the problem.
VIFModel <- lm(Binary ~ OrdA + OrdB + OrdC + OrdD + OrdE +
OrdF + OrdG + OrdH, data = VIFdata)
vif(VIFModel)
GVIF Df GVIF^(1/(2*Df))
OrdA 6.09 3 1.35
OrdB 3.50 2 1.37
OrdC 7.09 3 1.38
OrdD 6.07 2 1.57
OrdE 5.48 4 1.23
OrdF 3.05 2 1.32
OrdG 5.41 4 1.23
OrdH 3.03 2 1.31
The post also indicates that the problem can be caused by having "more variables than observations." However, I have 8 independent variables and 82 observations.
For context each independent variable is ordinal with 5 levels, and the binary dependent variable has 30% of the observations with "successes." I'm not sure if this could be associated with the issue. How do I fix this issue?
X <- model.matrix(Binary ~ OrdA+OrdB+OrdC+OrdD+OrdE+OrdF+OrdG+OrdH,
Data3, family = "binomial"); dim(X); Matrix::rankMatrix(X)
[1] 82 24
[1] 23
attr(,"method")
[1] "tolNorm2"
attr(,"useGrad")
[1] FALSE
attr(,"tol")
[1] 1.820766e-14
Short answer: your ordinal input variables are transformed to 24 predictor variables (number of columns of the model matrix), but the rank of your model matrix is only 23, so you do indeed have multicollinearity in your predictor variables. I don't know what vif is doing ...
You can use svd(X) to help figure out which components are collinear ...
I am trying to train a model using bstTree method and print out the confusion matrix. adverse_effects is my class attribute.
set.seed(1234)
splitIndex <- createDataPartition(attended_num_new_bstTree$adverse_effects, p = .80, list = FALSE, times = 1)
trainSplit <- attended_num_new_bstTree[ splitIndex,]
testSplit <- attended_num_new_bstTree[-splitIndex,]
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv", number = 5)
model_bstTree <- train(adverse_effects ~ ., data = trainSplit, method = "bstTree", trControl = ctrl)
predictors <- names(trainSplit)[names(trainSplit) != 'adverse_effects']
pred_bstTree <- predict(model_bstTree$finalModel, testSplit[,predictors])
plot.roc(auc_bstTree)
conf_bstTree= confusionMatrix(pred_bstTree,testSplit$adverse_effects)
But I get the error 'Error in confusionMatrix.default(pred_bstTree, testSplit$adverse_effects) :
The data must contain some levels that overlap the reference.'
max(pred_bstTree)
[1] 1.03385
min(pred_bstTree)
[1] 1.011738
> unique(trainSplit$adverse_effects)
[1] 0 1
Levels: 0 1
How can I fix this issue?
> head(trainSplit)
type New_missed Therapytypename New_Diesease gender adverse_effects change_in_exposure other_reasons other_medication
5 2 1 14 13 2 0 0 0 0
7 2 0 14 13 2 0 0 0 0
8 2 0 14 13 2 0 0 0 0
9 2 0 14 13 2 1 0 0 0
11 2 1 14 13 2 0 0 0 0
12 2 0 14 13 2 0 0 0 0
uvb_puva_type missed_prev_dose skintypeA skintypeB Age DoseB DoseA
5 5 1 1 1 22 3.000 0
7 5 0 1 1 22 4.320 0
8 5 0 1 1 22 4.752 0
9 5 0 1 1 22 5.000 0
11 5 1 1 1 22 5.000 0
12 5 0 1 1 22 5.000 0
I had similar problem, which refers to this error. I used function confusionMatrix:
confusionMatrix(actual, predicted, cutoff = 0.5)
An I got the following error: Error in confusionMatrix.default(actual, predicted, cutoff = 0.5) : The data must contain some levels that overlap the reference.
I checked couple of things like:
class(actual) -> numeric
class(predicted) -> integer
unique(actual) -> plenty values, since it is probability
unique(predicted) -> 2 levels: 0 and 1
I concluded, that there is problem with applying cutoff part of the function, so I did it before by:
predicted<-ifelse(predicted> 0.5,1,0)
and run the confusionMatrix function, which works now just fine:
cm<- confusionMatrix(actual, predicted)
cm$table
which generated correct outcome.
One takeaway for your case, which might improve interpretation once you make code working:
you mixed input values for your confusion matrix(as per confusionMatrix package documetation), instead of:
conf_bstTree= confusionMatrix(pred_bstTree,testSplit$adverse_effects)
you should have written:
conf_bstTree= confusionMatrix(testSplit$adverse_effects,pred_bstTree)
As said it will most likely help you interpret confusion matrix, once you figure out way to make it work.
Hope it helps.
max(pred_bstTree) [1] 1.03385
min(pred_bstTree) [1] 1.011738
and errors tells it all. Plotting ROC is simply checking the effect of different threshold points. Based on threshold rounding happens e.g. 0.7 will be converted to 1 (TRUE class) and 0.3 will be go 0 (FALSE class); in case threshold is 0.5. Threshold values are in range of (0,1)
In your case regardless of threshold you will always get all observations into TRUE class as even minimum prediction is greater than 1. (Thats why #phiver was wondering if you are doing regression instead of classification) . Without any zero in prediction there is no level in 'prediction' which coincide with zero level in adverse_effects and hence this error.
PS: It will be difficult to tell root cause of error without you posting your data
Suppose my dataset is a 100 x 3 matrix filled with categorical variables. I would like to do binary classification on the response variable. Let's make up a dataset with following code:
set.seed(2013)
y <- as.factor(round(runif(n=100,min=0,max=1),0))
var1 <- rep(c("red","blue","yellow","green"),each=25)
var2 <- rep(c("shortest","short","tall","tallest"),25)
df <- data.frame(y,var1,var2)
The data looks like this:
> head(df)
y var1 var2
1 0 red shortest
2 1 red short
3 1 red tall
4 1 red tallest
5 0 red shortest
6 1 red short
I tried to do random forest and adaboost on this data with two different approaches. The first approach is to use the data as it is:
> library(randomForest)
> randomForest(y~var1+var2,data=df,ntrees=500)
Call:
randomForest(formula = y ~ var1 + var2, data = df, ntrees = 500)
Type of random forest: classification
Number of trees: 500
No. of variables tried at each split: 1
OOB estimate of error rate: 44%
Confusion matrix:
0 1 class.error
0 29 22 0.4313725
1 22 27 0.4489796
----------------------------------------------------
> library(ada)
> ada(y~var1+var2,data=df)
Call:
ada(y ~ var1 + var2, data = df)
Loss: exponential Method: discrete Iteration: 50
Final Confusion Matrix for Data:
Final Prediction
True value 0 1
0 34 17
1 16 33
Train Error: 0.33
Out-Of-Bag Error: 0.33 iteration= 11
Additional Estimates of number of iterations:
train.err1 train.kap1
10 16
The second approach is to transform the dataset into wide format and treat each category as a variable. The reason I am doing this is because my actual dataset has 500+ factors in var1 and var2, and as a result, tree partitioning will always divide the 500 categories into 2 splits. A lot of information is lost by doing that. To transform the data:
id <- 1:100
library(reshape2)
tmp1 <- dcast(melt(cbind(id,df),id.vars=c("id","y")),id+y~var1,fun.aggregate=length)
tmp2 <- dcast(melt(cbind(id,df),id.vars=c("id","y")),id+y~var2,fun.aggregate=length)
df2 <- merge(tmp1,tmp2,by=c("id","y"))
The new data looks like this:
> head(df2)
id y blue green red yellow short shortest tall tallest
1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
2 10 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0
3 100 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
4 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0
5 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
6 13 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
I apply random forest and adaboost to this new dataset:
> library(randomForest)
> randomForest(y~blue+green+red+yellow+short+shortest+tall+tallest,data=df2,ntrees=500)
Call:
randomForest(formula = y ~ blue + green + red + yellow + short + shortest + tall + tallest, data = df2, ntrees = 500)
Type of random forest: classification
Number of trees: 500
No. of variables tried at each split: 2
OOB estimate of error rate: 39%
Confusion matrix:
0 1 class.error
0 32 19 0.3725490
1 20 29 0.4081633
----------------------------------------------------
> library(ada)
> ada(y~blue+green+red+yellow+short+shortest+tall+tallest,data=df2)
Call:
ada(y ~ blue + green + red + yellow + short + shortest + tall +
tallest, data = df2)
Loss: exponential Method: discrete Iteration: 50
Final Confusion Matrix for Data:
Final Prediction
True value 0 1
0 36 15
1 20 29
Train Error: 0.35
Out-Of-Bag Error: 0.33 iteration= 26
Additional Estimates of number of iterations:
train.err1 train.kap1
5 10
The results from two approaches are different. The difference is more obvious as we introduce more levels in each variable, i.e., var1 and var2. My question is, since we are using exactly the same data, why is the result different? How should we interpret the results from both approaches? Which is more reliable?
While these two models look identical, they are fundamentally different from one another- On the second model, you implicitly include the possibility that a given observation may have multiple colors and multiple heights. The correct choice between the two model formulations will depend on the characteristics of your real-world observations. If these characters are exclusive (i.e., each observation is of a single color and height), the first formulation of the model will be the right one to use. However, if an observation may be both blue and green, or any other color combination, you may use the second formulation. From a hunch looking at your original data, it seems like the first one is most appropriate (i.e., how would an observation have multiple heights??).
Also, why did you code your logical variable columns in df2 as 0s and 2s instead of 0/1? I wander if that will have any impact on the fit depending on how the data is being coded as factor or numerical.
I'm a PhD student of genetics and I am trying do association analysis of some genetic data using linear regression. In the table below I'm regressing each 'trait' against each 'SNP' There is also a interaction term include as 'var'
I've only used R for 2 weeks and I don't have any programming background so please explain any help provided as I want to understand.
This is a sample of my data:
Sample ID var trait 1 trait 2 trait 3 SNP1 SNP2 SNP3
77856517 2 188 3 2 1 0 0
375689755 8 17 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
392513415 8 28 14 4 1 1 1
393612038 8 85 14 6 1 1 0
401623551 8 152 11 -1 1 0 0
348466144 7 -74 11 6 1 0 0
77852806 4 81 16 6 1 1 0
440614343 8 -93 8 0 0 1 0
77853193 5 3 6 5 1 1 1
and this is the code I've been using for a single regression:
result1 <-lm(trait1~SNP1+var+SNP1*var, na.action=na.exclude)
I want to run a loop where every trait is tested against each SNP.
I've been trying to modify codes I've found online but I always run into some error that I don't understand how to solve.
Thank you for any and all help.
Personally I don't find the problem so easy. Specially for an R novice.
Here a solution based on creating dynamically the regression formula.
The idea is to use paste function to create different formula terms, y~ x + var + x * var then coercing the result string tp a formula using as.formula. Here y and x are the formula dynamic terms: y in c(trait1,trai2,..) and x in c(SNP1,SNP2,...). Of course here I use lapply to loop.
lapply(1:3,function(i){
y <- paste0('trait',i)
x <- paste0('SNP',i)
factor1 <- x
factor2 <- 'var'
factor3 <- paste(x,'var',sep='*')
listfactor <- c(factor1,factor2,factor3)
form <- as.formula(paste(y, "~",paste(listfactor,collapse="+")))
lm(formula = form, data = dat)
})
I hope someone come with easier solution, ore more R-ish one:)
EDIT
Thanks to #DWin comment , we can simplify the formula to just y~x*var since it means y is modeled by x,var and x*var
So the code above will be simplified to :
lapply(1:3,function(i){
y <- paste0('trait',i)
x <- paste0('SNP',i)
LHS <- paste(x,'var',sep='*')
form <- as.formula(paste(y, "~",LHS)
lm(formula = form, data = dat)
})