Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.


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

Re: st: RE: Ordinal logistic regression


From   Neil Shephard <nshephard@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: RE: Ordinal logistic regression
Date   Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:28:45 +0000

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Mary E. Mackesy-Amiti <mmamiti@uic.edu> wrote:
> I usually feel the same way about reducing information, but in some cases
> the clinically-relevant categories are of greater interest than the
> continuum.

Its completely arbitrary though.  Besides which BMI isn't a robust
indicator of obesity as it doesn't work for people who are very fit
and have lots of well honed muscles (their BMI often puts them in the
"obese" category when they are anything but).

Plenty of information on why not to categorise continuous variables at
http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/bin/view/Main/CatContinuous

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> How does obesity differ?

It doesn't, but clinicians seem to struggle with these concepts.

Neil
-- 
"Our civilization would be pitifully immature without the intellectual
revolution led by Darwin" - Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of
Molecular Evolution

Email - nshephard@gmail.com
Website - http://kimura-no-ip.org/
Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/
*
*   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 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index