1 / 28

4.3 GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS FOR COUNTS

4.3 GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS FOR COUNTS. count data - assume a Poisson distribution counts in contingency tables with categorical response variables. modeling count or rate data for a single discrete response variable. 4.3.1 Poisson Loglinear Models.

anneliese-panagos
Télécharger la présentation

4.3 GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS FOR COUNTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 4.3 GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS FOR COUNTS • count data - assume a Poisson distribution • counts in contingency tables with categorical response variables. • modeling count or rate data for a single discrete response variable.

  2. 4.3.1 Poisson Loglinear Models • The Poisson distribution has a positive mean µ. • Although a GLM can model a positive mean using the identity link, it is more common to model the log of the mean. • Like the linear predictor , the log mean can take any real value. • The log mean is the natural parameter for the Poisson distribution, and the log link is the canonical link for a Poisson GLM. • A Poisson loglinear GLM assumes a Poisson distribution for Y and uses the log link.

  3. Log linear model • The Poisson loglinear model with explanatory variable X is • For this model, the mean satisfies the exponential relationship x • A 1-unit increase in x has a multiplicative impact of on µ • The mean at x+1 equals the mean at x multiplied by .

  4. 4.3.2 Horseshoe Crab Mating Example

  5. 4.3.2 Horseshoe Crab Mating Example • a study of nesting horseshoe crabs. • Each female horseshoe crab had a male crab resident in her nest. • AIM: factors affecting whether the female crab had any other males, called satellites, residing nearby. • Explanatory variables are : • C - the female crab’s color, • S - spine condition, • Wt - weight, • W - carapace width. • Outcome: number of satellites (Sa) of a female crab. • For now, we only study W (carapace width)

  6. number of satellites (Sa) = f (W) • Scatter plot – weakly linear ? (N=173) • Grouped plot: To get a clearer picture, we grouped the female crabs into width categories and calculated the sample mean number of satellites for female crabs in each category. • Figure 4.4 plots these sample means against the sample mean width for crabs in each category. • The sample means show a strong increasing trend. WHY?

  7. SAS code data table4_3; input C S W Wt Sa@@; cards; 2 3 28.3 3.05 8 3 3 22.5 … ; procgenmoddata=table4_3; model Sa=W/dist=poisson link=identity; odsoutput ParameterEstimates=PE1; run; procgenmoddata=table4_3; model Sa=w/dist=poisson link=log; odsoutput ParameterEstimates=PE2; run;

  8. data_NULL_; set PE1; if Parameter="Intercept"then call symput("intercp1", Estimate); if Parameter="W"thencall symput("b1", Estimate); data_NULL_; set PE2; if Parameter="Intercept"then call symput("intercp2", Estimate); if Parameter="W"thencall symput("b2", Estimate); run; data tmp; do W=22to32by0.01; mu1=&intercp1 + &b1*W; mu2=exp(&intercp2 + &b2*W); output; end; run;

  9. Graphs procsortdata=table4_3; by W; data tmp1; merge table4_3 tmp; by W; run; symbol1i=join line=1color=green value=none; symbol2i=join line=2color=red value=none; symbol3i=none line=3value=circle; procgplotdata=tmp1; plot mu1*W mu2*W Sa*W / overlay; run;

  10. Group data /*group data*/ data table4_3a; set table4_3; W_g=round(W-0.75)+0.75; *if W<23.25 then W_g=22.5; *if W>29.25 then W_g=30.5; run; procsql; createtable table4_3g as select W_g, count(W_g) as Num_of_Cases, sum(Sa) as Num_of_Satellites, mean(Sa) as Sa_g, var(sa) as Var_SA from table4_3a group by W_g; quit; procprint; run;

  11. SAS output Num_of_ Num_of_ Obs W_g Cases Satellites Sa_g Var_SA 1 20.75 1 0 0.00000 . 2 21.75 1 0 0.00000 . 3 22.75 12 14 1.16667 3.0606 4 23.75 14 20 1.42857 8.8791 5 24.75 28 67 2.39286 6.5437 6 25.75 39 105 2.69231 11.3765 7 26.75 22 63 2.86364 6.8853 8 27.75 24 93 3.87500 8.8098 9 28.75 18 71 3.94444 16.8791 10 29.75 9 53 5.88889 9.8611 11 30.75 2 6 3.00000 0.0000 12 31.75 2 6 3.00000 2.0000 13 33.75 1 7 7.00000 .

  12. Graphs data tmp2; merge table4_3g(rename=(W_g=W)) tmp; by W; run; symbol1i=join line=1color=green value=none; symbol2i=join line=2color=red value=none; symbol3i=none line=3value=circle; procgplotdata=tmp2; plot mu1*W mu2*W Sa_g*W / overlay; run;

  13. 4.3.3 Overdispersion for Poisson GLMs

  14. Solution?

  15. 4.3.4 Negative binomial GLMs

  16. /*fit negative binomial with identical link to count for overdispersion*/ procgenmoddata=table4_3; model Sa=W/dist=NEGBIN link=identity; odsoutput ParameterEstimates=PE3; run;

  17. 4.3.6 Poisson GLM of independence in I × J contingence tables

More Related