我的负二项模型适用于我的数据如下：
> ngbinmodel <- glm.nb( seizure.rate ~ age + treatment, data = epilepsy_reduced)
> summary(ngbinmodel)
Call:
glm.nb(formula = seizure.rate ~ age + treatment, data = epilepsy_reduced,
init.theta = 1.498983674, link = log)
Deviance Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.3510 -0.8790 -0.4563 0.4328 1.8916
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 2.0985089 0.5845392 3.590 0.000331 ***
age -0.0007965 0.0193064 -0.041 0.967092
treatment -0.5011593 0.2405658 -2.083 0.037228 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(1.499) family taken to be 1)
Null deviance: 71.217 on 57 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 66.875 on 55 degrees of freedom
AIC: 341.12
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 1
Theta: 1.499
Std. Err.: 0.362
2 x log-likelihood: -333.119
现在我想检查是否应该包括年龄和治疗之间的交互作用。我找到了两种方法：
> intearaction_nbm<-addterm(ngbinmodel, . ~ . * age,test="Chisq")
> summary(intearaction_nbm)
Df AIC LRT Pr(Chi)
Min. :1 Min. :339.1 Min. :0.9383 Min. :0.3327
1st Qu.:1 1st Qu.:339.4 1st Qu.:0.9383 1st Qu.:0.3327
Median :1 Median :339.6 Median :0.9383 Median :0.3327
Mean :1 Mean :339.6 Mean :0.9383 Mean :0.3327
3rd Qu.:1 3rd Qu.:339.9 3rd Qu.:0.9383 3rd Qu.:0.3327
Max. :1 Max. :340.2 Max. :0.9383 Max. :0.3327
NA's :1 NA's :1 NA's :1
和
> ngbinmodel_int <- glm.nb( seizure.rate ~ age*treatment, data = epilepsy_reduced)
> summary(ngbinmodel_int)
glm.nb(formula = seizure.rate ~ age * treatment, data = epilepsy_reduced,
init.theta = 1.531539174, link = log)
Deviance Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.3503 -0.8742 -0.3848 0.3403 1.8508
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 1.51361 0.83920 1.804 0.0713 .
age 0.01914 0.02826 0.677 0.4981
treatment 0.60748 1.12199 0.541 0.5882
age:treatment -0.03893 0.03850 -1.011 0.3119
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(1.5315) family taken to be 1)
Null deviance: 72.238 on 57 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 66.874 on 54 degrees of freedom
AIC: 342.18
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 1
Theta: 1.532
Std. Err.: 0.373
2 x log-likelihood: -332.180
我期望从这两种方法中获得相同的结果。
如何访问intearaction_nbm的回归估算值？
为什么结果会有所不同？根据intearaction_nbm我应该包含交互项（AIC较低）但是根据ngbinmodel_int我不应该包含交互项（AIC增加）。
会不断对我的连续变量age进行离散化吗？
答案 0 :(得分：0)
备注：您应该移动此帖子以进行交叉验证。
intearaction_nbm为您提供了为模型添加单项的结果，如果您打印它，每个可能的附加项（age:treatment）都会有一行， age:another_variable等）给你AIC和P值等等。
没有数据就无法回答，但我要做的是定义两个模型并使用AIC(model_1, model_2)比较他们的AIC。这样我确信我正在比较相同的数量。如您所知，AIC最多定义为一个附加项，除非您检查它的计算方式，否则您无法确定两个不同包中的两个不同函数是否使用相同的定义。
没有数据就无法回答......
答案 1 :(得分：0)
让我们考虑数据集quine和以下模型，仅考虑Eth和Lrn因素的主要影响：
library(MASS)
negbin_no_int <- glm.nb(Days ~ Eth + Lrn, data = quine)
summary(negbin_no_int)
# Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
# (Intercept) 3.0367 0.1334 22.764 < 2e-16 ***
# EthN -0.5520 0.1597 -3.457 0.000546 ***
# LrnSL 0.0388 0.1611 0.241 0.809661
extractAIC(negbin_no_int)
# [1] 3.000 1112.576
具有两个因素之间的相互作用项的模型是：
negbin_with_int <- glm.nb(Days ~ Eth * Lrn, data = quine)
summary(negbin_with_int)
# Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
# (Intercept) 2.9218 0.1503 19.446 <2e-16 ***
# EthN -0.3374 0.2100 -1.607 0.108
# LrnSL 0.2929 0.2307 1.269 0.204
# EthN:LrnSL -0.4956 0.3201 -1.549 0.122
extractAIC(negbin_with_int)
# [1] 4.000 1112.196
交互项的统计显着性为p=0.122
现在我们使用addterm比较两个模型：
interaction_nbm <- addterm(negbin_no_int, . ~ . + Eth:Lrn, test="Chisq")
print(interaction_nbm)
# Model:
# Days ~ Eth + Lrn
# Df AIC LRT Pr(Chi)
# <none> 1112.6
# Eth:Lrn 1 1112.2 2.3804 0.1229
addterm给出的AIC与使用extractAIC计算的相同。
如果您想查看addterm的回归估算值，可以在函数内添加summary(print(nfit))，如下所示：
myaddterm <- function (object, scope, scale = 0, test = c("none", "Chisq"),
k = 2, sorted = FALSE, trace = FALSE, ...)
{
if (missing(scope) || is.null(scope))
stop("no terms in scope")
if (!is.character(scope))
scope <- add.scope(object, update.formula(object, scope))
if (!length(scope))
stop("no terms in scope for adding to object")
ns <- length(scope)
ans <- matrix(nrow = ns + 1L, ncol = 2L, dimnames = list(c("<none>",
scope), c("df", "AIC")))
ans[1L, ] <- extractAIC(object, scale, k = k, ...)
n0 <- nobs(object, use.fallback = TRUE)
env <- environment(formula(object))
for (i in seq_len(ns)) {
tt <- scope[i]
if (trace) {
message(gettextf("trying + %s", tt), domain = NA)
utils::flush.console()
}
nfit <- update(object, as.formula(paste("~ . +", tt)),
evaluate = FALSE)
nfit <- try(eval(nfit, envir = env), silent = TRUE)
print(summary(nfit))
ans[i + 1L, ] <- if (!inherits(nfit, "try-error")) {
nnew <- nobs(nfit, use.fallback = TRUE)
if (all(is.finite(c(n0, nnew))) && nnew != n0)
stop("number of rows in use has changed: remove missing values?")
extractAIC(nfit, scale, k = k, ...)
}
else NA_real_
}
dfs <- ans[, 1L] - ans[1L, 1L]
dfs[1L] <- NA
aod <- data.frame(Df = dfs, AIC = ans[, 2L])
o <- if (sorted)
order(aod$AIC)
else seq_along(aod$AIC)
test <- match.arg(test)
if (test == "Chisq") {
dev <- ans[, 2L] - k * ans[, 1L]
dev <- dev[1L] - dev
dev[1L] <- NA
nas <- !is.na(dev)
P <- dev
P[nas] <- MASS:::safe_pchisq(dev[nas], dfs[nas], lower.tail = FALSE)
aod[, c("LRT", "Pr(Chi)")] <- list(dev, P)
}
aod <- aod[o, ]
head <- c("Single term additions", "\nModel:", deparse(formula(object)))
if (scale > 0)
head <- c(head, paste("\nscale: ", format(scale), "\n"))
class(aod) <- c("anova", "data.frame")
attr(aod, "heading") <- head
aod
}
interaction_nbm1 <- myaddterm(negbin_no_int, . ~ . + Eth:Lrn, test="Chisq")
输出结果为：
Call:
glm.nb(formula = Days ~ Eth + Lrn + Eth:Lrn, data = quine, init.theta = 1.177546225,
link = log)
Deviance Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.5770 -1.0470 -0.3645 0.3521 2.7227
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 2.9218 0.1503 19.446 <2e-16 ***
EthN -0.3374 0.2100 -1.607 0.108
LrnSL 0.2929 0.2307 1.269 0.204
EthN:LrnSL -0.4956 0.3201 -1.549 0.122
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(1.1775) family taken to be 1)
Null deviance: 182.93 on 145 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 168.18 on 142 degrees of freedom
AIC: 1114.2
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 1
Theta: 1.178
Std. Err.: 0.146
2 x log-likelihood: -1104.196