Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: New article comparing software for GLMMs with binary responses


From   Roger Harbord <rmharbord@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   st: New article comparing software for GLMMs with binary responses
Date   Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:52:46 +0100

Interesting-looking article just published online in Statistics in
Medicine comparing approaches, algorithms and software for fitting
generalized linear mixed-effects models with binary responses:

Zhang,Hui; Lu,Naiji; Feng,Changyong; Thurston,Sally W.; Xia,Yinglin;
Zhu,Liang; Tu,Xin M.
On fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models for binary
responses using different statistical packages. Statistics in Medicine
2011 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.4265>

They compare two SAS procedures and three R packages, but ignore Stata
completely -- I feel offended on Stata's behalf. Extending to Stata
might make a worthwhile short student project if someone on this list
is responsible for a suitable course. I'm aware that -xtmelogit- and
-gllamm- sometimes give noticeably different results due to subtle
differences in their approaches and algorithms, but I'm never sure
exactly what the differences are. It would be helpful to list these
and compare results to those from SAS and R given in this paper. I
imagine Statistics in Medicine might be willing to publish as a
letter.

Roger.

-- 
Roger Harbord
http://www.epi.bris.ac.uk/staff/rharbord.htm
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index