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

From |
Fred Wolfe <fwolfe@arthritis-research.org> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression |

Date |
Sat, 08 May 2004 15:54:44 -0500 |

matter on Statalist before now, so it's not clear how often this is needed. I need it all the time! I just -gen byte dummy = 1 at the top of a do file -then adjust, by(dummy) Fred At 02:11 PM 5/8/2004, you wrote:

This is a question for StataCorp, so I have to guess at an answer. I doubt that there is a strong programming objection to what you suggest. Rather, the aim of -adjust- is to tabulate sets of predictions, and what you suggest would make the default output somewhat trivial. In other words, it looks like a design issue, not a syntax one. The first and last time I wanted predictions as function of one covariate, all others being set to their means, it irritated me that you had to talk your way past that -by()- requirement. So I wrote a wrapper that does it for me, but hesitated at making that public, given the labour of writing the help and a worry that it might not be general enough to bear the weight some users might put on it. That was January 2003, and I don't recall anyone raising the matter on Statalist before now, so it's not clear how often this is needed. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of Richard > Williams > Sent: 08 May 2004 19:54 > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu; statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > Subject: RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression > > > At 06:58 PM 5/8/2004 +0100, Nick Cox wrote: > >You can use -adjust-: you just need to talk > >your way past the requirement for a -by()- > >option (unless that is part of what you want). > > As a sidelight, I've never liked or understood the requirement that > -adjust- include the -by- parameter; why not just default to > analyzing all > cases at once instead of requiring that calculations be done for > subgroups? It can be worked around, but it is a minor > nuisance so why > require it in the first place? If dropping the -by- > requirement would > create some sort of compatibility problem, perhaps some sort > of optional > parameter to analyze all selected cases could be added instead. * * 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/

Fred Wolfe National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases Wichita, Kansas Tel (316) 263-2125 Fax (316) 263-0761 fwolfe@arthritis-research.org * * 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/

**References**:**RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: Re: gllapred error after gllamm** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: plot predicted effects after regression** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |