On Fri, 6 May 2011, Bert Gunter wrote:
FWIW:
Fitting higher order polynomials (say > 2) is almost always a bad idea.
See e.g. the Hastie, Tibshirani, et. al book on "Statistical
Learning" for a detailed explanation why. The Wikipedia entry on
"smoothing splines" also contains a brief explanation, I believe.
Your ~0 P values for the coefficients also suggest problems/confusion
(!) -- perhaps you need to consider something along the lines of
"functional data analysis" for your analysis.
Having no knowledge of your issues, these remarks are entirely
speculative and may well be wrong. So feel free to dismiss.
Nevertheless, you may find it useful to consult your local
statistician for help.
That is the main piece of advice I would have given. But if you must
DIY, consider the merits of orthogonal polynomials. Computing
individual confidence intervals for highly correlated coefficients is
very dubious practice. Without the example the posting guide asked
for, we can only guess if that is what is happening.
Cheers,
Bert
P.S. The raw = TRUE option of poly will fit raw, not orthogonal,
polynomials. The fitted projections will be the same up to numerical
error whichever basis is chosen, of course.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Ben Haller <rh...@sticksoftware.com> wrote:
On May 6, 2011, at 12:31 PM, David Winsemius wrote:
On May 6, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Ben Haller wrote:
Hi all! I'm getting a model fit from glm() (a binary logistic regression fit,
but I don't think that's important) for a formula that contains powers of the
explanatory variable up to fourth. So the fit looks something like this
(typing into mail; the actual fit code is complicated because it involves
step-down and so forth):
x_sq <- x * x
x_cb <- x * x * x
x_qt <- x * x * x * x
model <- glm(outcome ~ x + x_sq + x_cb + x_qt, binomial)
It might have been easier with:
model <- glm(outcome ~ poly(x, 4) , binomial)
Interesting. The actual model I'm fitting has lots more terms, and needs to be able to
be stepped down; sometimes some of the terms of the polynomials will get dropped while
others get retained, for example. But more to the point, poly() seems to be doing
something tricky involving "orthogonal polynomials" that I don't understand. I
don't think I want whatever that is; I want my original variable x, plus its powers. For
example, if I do:
x < runif(10)
poly(x, 3)
the columns I get are not x, x^2, x^3; they are something else. So the poly()
fit is not equivalent to my fit.
Since the authors of confint might have been expecting a poly() formulation the
results might be more reliable. I'm just using lm() but I think the conclusions
are more general:
...
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.45737 0.52499 0.871 0.3893
x -0.75989 1.15080 -0.660 0.5131
x2 1.30987 0.67330 1.945 0.0594 .
x3 -0.03559 0.11058 -0.322 0.7494
...
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 5.4271 0.1434 37.839 < 2e-16 ***
poly(x, 3)1 30.0235 0.9184 32.692 < 2e-16 ***
poly(x, 3)2 8.7823 0.9184 9.563 1.53e-11 ***
poly(x, 3)3 -0.2956 0.9184 -0.322 0.749
Here, in your illustration, is underscored what I mean. Whatever these
orthogonal polynomial terms are that you're using, they are clearly not the
original x, x^2 and x^3, and they're giving you a different fit than those do. I
probably ought to learn about this technique, since it looks interesting; but for
my purposes I need the fit to actually be in terms of x, since x is my explanatory
variable. And the fit I'm getting is highly significant (all terms < 2e-16),
so the lack of fit problem you're illustrating does not seem to apply to my case.
Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding your point...? :->
Thanks!
Ben Haller
McGill University
http://biology.mcgill.ca/grad/ben/
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
"Men by nature long to get on to the ultimate truths, and will often
be impatient with elementary studies or fight shy of them. If it were
possible to reach the ultimate truths without the elementary studies
usually prefixed to them, these would not be preparatory studies but
superfluous diversions."
-- Maimonides (1135-1204)
Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
Brian D. Ripley, rip...@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
