[R-sig-ME] Mixed Models in SAS and R
Bertke, Stephen (CDC/NIOSH/DSHEFS)
inh4 at cdc.gov
Thu Feb 15 16:56:59 CET 2018
Sorry for all the emails, but I have edited/simplified my question to what I believe is the root issue as well as posted simulated data to test with:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/328712/lmer-vs-proc-mixed-output
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertke, Stephen (CDC/NIOSH/DSHEFS)
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 2:25 PM
To: 'Thierry Onkelinx' <thierry.onkelinx at inbo.be>
Cc: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
Subject: RE: [R-sig-ME] Mixed Models in SAS and R
I posted the question on stackoverflow here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48794651/lmer-vs-proc-mixed-output
This will hopefully make reading my code and output easier.
I would expect a 0 variance since I am in essence fitting a model with both the site variable in the fixed and random part of the model. I actually went ahead and fit that "dumb" model in both SAS and R and once again, all results are nearly identical except SAS estimates a 0 variance and R estimates a relatively large positive variance. However, R now gives an error/warning at the bottom of the results indicating an issue with this very dumb model. Again, those results are in the above link.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Onkelinx [mailto:thierry.onkelinx at inbo.be]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:39 AM
To: Bertke, Stephen (CDC/NIOSH/DSHEFS) <inh4 at cdc.gov>
Cc: r-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-ME] Mixed Models in SAS and R
Dear Stephen,
The list removes all HTML formating, making your post hard to read.
Please use only plain text when posting.
You'll need to make sure that you fit exactly the same model in SAS as in R. Not everyone here speaks SAS. Providing the math equation for the SAS model would help.
Also please elaborate why it makes sense that the variance of site should be zero. We cannot verify that statement based on the information you provide.
Best regards,
ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Statisticus / Statistician
Vlaamse Overheid / Government of Flanders INSTITUUT VOOR NATUUR- EN BOSONDERZOEK / RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST Team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg / Team Biometrics & Quality Assurance thierry.onkelinx at inbo.be Havenlaan 88 bus 73, 1000 Brussel www.inbo.be
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger Brinner The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data. ~ John Tukey ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
2018-02-14 17:07 GMT+01:00 Bertke, Stephen (CDC/NIOSH/DSHEFS) <inh4 at cdc.gov>:
> Hello everyone. I have just joined this mailing list so I wanted to introduce myself as well as ask a question.
>
> My name is Steve Bertke and I am a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) which is one of the centers within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am a long-time SAS user but have been slowly finding myself using and liking R. I have found the support community for R very helpful and rewarding and am looking forward to contributing my part.
>
> On to my question.
>
> I have ran the same model (I think) in both SAS (proc mixed) and R (lmer) but have gotten different results for the random terms.
>
> A quick background, we took 2 personal air samples for 127 people at 15 different factories for a total of 252 samples (after dropping 2 samples). We are trying to model various factors of the factory on the air samples. To do so, we need to control for the repeated measure of the person (nested within factory) as well as the random factory effect.
>
> You can see below for the exact code and exact results, but in short, when I run the models in R and SAS without any fixed effects, I get the same results for the random effects. When I enter in the fixed effects, I get a different result for the Site variance...but all other results are the same (both the fixed effects and the other random effects).
>
> There is another methodological issue with the model I am running. I am entering in 17 fixed effects that describe the 15 sites. Therefore, the model is over-specified. As a result, SAS gives a variance estimate of 0 for site (which, in hindsight, makes sense) however, R does not. That is a separate issue that we are dealing with, but I would expect that R and SAS would give the same result. Or maybe at least a warning.
>
> Below is my code and output. I hope the formatting remains so that it is easily readable for everyone. I may also be able to share the data too, but I need to get some approval for that first.
>
> Details
> I ran the following code in SAS and R without any fixed effects and both give the same results:
>
> proc mixed data=dat;
> class NewSiteID NIOSHID;
> model ln_i = ;
> random NewSiteID NIOSHID(NewSiteID);
> run;
>
> Covariance Parameter Estimates
>
> Cov Parm
>
> Estimate
>
> NewSiteID
>
> 6.3433
>
> NIOSHID(NewSiteID)
>
> 0.7465
>
> Residual
>
> 2.5256
>
>
> mixedidsite <- lmer(ln_i ~ (1 | NewSiteID/NIOSHID),
> data = Modeling_Database_Final)
> summary(mixedidsite)
>
> Random effects:
> Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
> NIOSHID:NewSiteID (Intercept) 0.7465 0.864
> NewSiteID (Intercept) 6.3434 2.519
> Residual 2.5256 1.589
>
> However, when I add in the fixed effects, I get different results. SAS gives an estimate of 0 for Site while R does not. All other results are the same:
>
> proc mixed data=dat;
> class NewSiteID NIOSHID F_mass_handled_or (ref=first); model ln_i =
> F_High_Exp F_Mat_Type_SW F_Mat_Type_CNF F_Mat_Form_Dry F_Mat_Form_Liq
> F_Mat_Form_Comp F_Hybrid F_Primary F_Coatings F_mass_handled_or
> F_adequate F_inadequate F_emp_sc F_diam_sc/solution; random NewSiteID
> NIOSHID(NewSiteID); run;
>
> Covariance Parameter Estimates
>
> Cov Parm
>
> Estimate
>
> NewSiteID
>
> 0
>
> NIOSHID(NewSiteID)
>
> 0.6954
>
> Residual
>
> 2.5372
>
>
> Fit Statistics
>
> -2 Res Log Likelihood
>
> 961.8
>
> AIC (Smaller is Better)
>
> 965.8
>
> AICC (Smaller is Better)
>
> 965.9
>
> BIC (Smaller is Better)
>
> 967.3
>
>
> Solution for Fixed Effects
>
> Effect
>
> F_mass_handled_or
>
> Estimate
>
> Standard
> Error
>
> DF
>
> t Value
>
> Pr > |t|
>
> Intercept
>
>
>
> -139.29
>
> 83.6162
>
> 92.1
>
> -1.67
>
> 0.0991
>
> F_High_Exp
>
>
>
> -180.24
>
> 102.72
>
> 92.6
>
> -1.75
>
> 0.0826
>
> F_Mat_Type_SW
>
>
>
> 470.30
>
> 261.53
>
> 92.1
>
> 1.80
>
> 0.0754
>
> F_Mat_Type_CNF
>
>
>
> -636.35
>
> 347.99
>
> 92.1
>
> -1.83
>
> 0.0707
>
> F_Mat_Form_Dry
>
>
>
> 662.26
>
> 368.75
>
> 92
>
> 1.80
>
> 0.0758
>
> F_Mat_Form_Liq
>
>
>
> -583.14
>
> 318.54
>
> 92
>
> -1.83
>
> 0.0704
>
> F_Mat_Form_Comp
>
>
>
> 598.77
>
> 331.85
>
> 92
>
> 1.80
>
> 0.0745
>
> F_Hybrid
>
>
>
> -1197.69
>
> 658.23
>
> 92
>
> -1.82
>
> 0.0721
>
> F_Primary
>
>
>
> -639.93
>
> 352.80
>
> 92
>
> -1.81
>
> 0.0730
>
> F_Coatings
>
>
>
> 92.7949
>
> 50.7416
>
> 92.1
>
> 1.83
>
> 0.0707
>
> F_mass_handled_or
>
> F2
>
> 134.91
>
> 77.2496
>
> 92
>
> 1.75
>
> 0.0841
>
> F_mass_handled_or
>
> F3
>
> -1235.37
>
> 677.42
>
> 92
>
> -1.82
>
> 0.0715
>
> F_mass_handled_or
>
> F4
>
> 137.71
>
> 75.9370
>
> 92
>
> 1.81
>
> 0.0730
>
> F_mass_handled_or
>
> F1
>
> 0
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
> F_adequate
>
>
>
> 139.45
>
> 76.5607
>
> 92
>
> 1.82
>
> 0.0718
>
> F_inadequate
>
>
>
> 1395.04
>
> 767.40
>
> 92
>
> 1.82
>
> 0.0723
>
> F_emp_sc
>
>
>
> -1259.21
>
> 691.98
>
> 92
>
> -1.82
>
> 0.0721
>
> F_diam_sc
>
>
>
> -20.1875
>
> 9.9710
>
> 89.5
>
> -2.02
>
> 0.0459
>
>
> mixedidsite <- lmer(ln_i ~ (1 | NewSiteID/NIOSHID) + F_High_Exp + F_Mat_Type_SW +
> F_Mat_Type_CNF + F_Mat_Form_Dry + F_Mat_Form_Liq + F_Mat_Form_Comp +
> F_Hybrid + F_Primary + F_Coatings + F_adequate +
> F_inadequate + F_emp_sc + F_diam_sc,
> data = Modeling_Database_Final)
> summary(mixedidsite)
>
> REML criterion at convergence: 961.8
>
> Scaled residuals:
> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
> -2.3019 -0.5248 -0.1668 0.3511 4.7091
>
> Random effects:
> Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
> NIOSHID:NewSiteID (Intercept) 0.6954 0.8339
> NewSiteID (Intercept) 1.5932 1.2622
> Residual 2.5372 1.5929
> Number of obs: 252, groups: NIOSHID:NewSiteID, 127; NewSiteID, 15
>
> Fixed effects:
> Estimate Std. Error t value
> (Intercept) -139.292 83.702 -1.664
> F_High_Exp -180.239 102.778 -1.754
> F_Mat_Type_SW 470.297 261.537 1.798
> F_Mat_Type_CNF -636.352 347.993 -1.829
> F_Mat_Form_Dry 662.263 368.761 1.796
> F_Mat_Form_Liq -583.142 318.541 -1.831
> F_Mat_Form_Comp 598.774 331.856 1.804
> F_Hybrid -1197.691 658.229 -1.820
> F_Primary -639.928 352.811 -1.814
> F_Coatings 92.795 50.804 1.826
> F_mass_handled_orF2: 10 - 134.912 77.291 1.746
> F_mass_handled_orF3: 101 -1235.372 677.423 -1.824
> F_mass_handled_orF4: >1 k 137.714 75.958 1.813
> F_adequate 139.446 76.582 1.821
> F_inadequate 1395.036 767.413 1.818
> F_emp_sc -1259.213 691.979 -1.820
> F_diam_sc -20.188 9.971 -2.025
>
> Again, the SAS results make sense...that there is 0 variance left over from the fully specified fixed effects. I am fairly certain the combination of the fixed effects uniquely identifies each facility. However, why doesn't R give a 0 variance? What is different between the two methods?
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
More information about the R-sig-mixed-models
mailing list