[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: RE: proportion of explained variance with log-transformed outcome |

Date |
Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:01:30 -0000 |

There's a bundle of issues here. To avoid some of them, I'll focus on the idea of R-sq as corr(response, predicted response)^2 or corr(log response, predicted log response)^2 I presume that's what you're calling "proportion of explained variance", a term many dislike, for often-rehearsed reasons. Even with that focus, this is partial. 1 Numerical =========== It's possible that these two measures are fairly close. Presumably that's most likely if corr(y, log y) is very near 1 -- in which case there is little point in a log transformation. The implication is that y is measured over so small a relative range that the curvature of the log function can be neglected. I would never count on them being close. But typically it's very easy to get both measures and compare. 2 Scientific ============ In perhaps a minority of situations, one decides that a logarithmic scale is as or more convenient -- even more natural -- as the raw scale, in which case scientifically (practically, sociologically, whatever) one is as happy working on a logarithmic scale as on the original. Hackneyed but genuine examples are pH and decibels. If the statistics also says "logarithmic scales are better, because then model assumptions are more nearly correct", then everything marches together. This is not an absolute distinction. It seems that economists can flip quite easily between thinking about income and thinking about log income, especially with practice. Both scales make enormous sense. I don't know if "log systolic blood pressure" ever seems quite natural in the same way, even if the log transformation appeared sensible on statistical grounds. Clearly, there can be some tension between the scientific ego and the statistical id (or is it the other way round?) if the scientist (scientific part of the researcher) wants to think in terms of the original scales (and presumably measurement must have been lousy if measured scales are thought dispensable). 3 Statistical ============= As often mentioned on this list, one signal merit of generalised linear models is that they purport to give you the best of both worlds, that you do the calculations on a transformed scale -- by courtesy of a link function -- but get results on the response scale. Perhaps that's something to check out. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Buzz Burhans > If one estimates the proportion of explained variance for a > model using a > log transformed variable, is that proportion of explained variance > approximately applicable to the untransformed variable ? In other > words, if I derive the proportion of explained variance of > a dependant > variable in a logtransformed model associated with a > predictor variable, > does that variable also explain a similar proportion of > the variance (not > necessarily exactly the same) in the untransformed raw > metric? I appreciate > that the variance itself in the two metrics is different, > but is the > proportion of explained variance similar? > > I have a model in which a treatment effect is significant, > but explains > little of the total variance. The model is run on > transformed variables > (log transformed outcome, and a fractional polynomial > dependant time > variable). Interpretation in practical terms should speak > to this issue of > minimal albeit significant treatment effect relative to > contribution to the > total variance, but I am not sure how to express this, or > even if I can > make any statement about it relative to the original raw > metric since I > modeled in the transformed metric. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: RE: proportion of explained variance with log-transformed outcome***From:*Buzz Burhans <wsb2@cornell.edu>

**References**:**st: proportion of explained variance with log-transformed outcome***From:*Buzz Burhans <wsb2@cornell.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: Another manual idea** - Next by Date:
**st: ridge regression** - Previous by thread:
**st: proportion of explained variance with log-transformed outcome** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: proportion of explained variance with log-transformed outcome** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |