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

From |
"Leny Mathew" <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed |

Date |
Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:40:52 -0400 |

```
That's a good idea. Fortunately for me, there is no one with a 1.0 in
any of the hormones at any of the three time points.
On 10/8/07, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I think the least unsatisfactory options
> are
>
> 1. To omit zeros and to indicate them by a rug of ticks
> on the other axis.
>
> 2. To plot downward-pointing arrows at say
> log(0.5). Whatever constant is used should
> be less than the smallest positive value observed.
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Nick Cox
> > Sent: 08 October 2007 21:09
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: st: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed
> >
> >
> > So, a log of 0 sometimes means that the data are 1
> > and sometimes that they are 0?
> >
> > There's no neat solution to this one.
> >
> > Nick
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Leny Mathew
> >
> > > Thanks Nick. For the purposes of the graph, I created a new variable
> > > with the zeros changed to 1 and then took the log;
> > effectively setting
> > > them as zero in the log graph. I guess I could scale the
> > variable by a
> > > very small value and then take the log also.
> > >
> > > On 10/8/07, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > -gllamm- I leave to experts on it.
> > > >
> > > > -glm- produces predictions on the scale of the response,
> > > > whatever the link. It can also be quite sensible to use a
> > > > log scale for subsequent graphing. Indeed I've found
> > > > log link and log scale for graphs invaluable in some cases.
> > > > The results are not equivalent to transforming the response
> > > > because the log of the mean is not in general the mean
> > > > of the logs (and similarly for any nonlinear transformation).
> > > >
> > > > However, you can't show zeros on a log scale. If you
> > > > try this, Stata just gives you a dopey graph. That's
> > > > its way of saying "Isn't that rather a silly thing
> > > > to ask for?"
>
> *
> * 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/
>
*
* 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: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed***From:*"Nick Cox" <[email protected]>

**RE: st: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed***From:*"Nick Cox" <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed** - Next by Date:
**st: How does Stata perform with exact tests?** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: RE: GLLAMM error: log-likelihood cannot be computed** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: cancer dataset** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |