Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math.independent

Topic: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs

Replies: 148   Last Post: May 8, 2012 3:40 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ray Koopman

Posts: 3,383
Registered: 12/7/04
Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....

Posted: Apr 29, 2012 1:58 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 28, 7:45 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:
> In a post above, you wrote:
>
> "Only if both coefficients are individually significant and they have
> different signs can you skip testing the
> difference."
>
> Using the {lnL,mv,lnLmv} model, the study and control group results
> for the b1 fold appear to exemplify this kind of case, where
> corresponding coefficients are individually significant with flipped
> signs, thereby eliminating the need for further testing.
>
> b1 study group results for {lnL,mv,lnLmv} model
>
> 125831 cases have Y=0; 29715 cases have Y=1.
>
> Overall Model Fit...
> Chi Square=34591.3722; df=3; p= 0.0000
>
> Coefficients and Standard Errors...
> Variable Coeff. StdErr p
> 1 4.3831 0.0460 0.0000
> 2 0.3439 0.0979 0.0004
> 3 -0.0734 0.0234 0.0017
> Intercept -19.3877
>
> Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals...
> Variable O.R. Low -- High
> 1 80.0878 73.1806 87.6470
> 2 1.4104 1.1643 1.7086
> 3 0.9292 0.8875 0.9729
>
> b1 control group results for {lnL,mv,lnLmv} model
>
> 24854 cases have Y=0; 3237 cases have Y=1.
>
> Overall Model Fit...
> Chi Square= 4256.4807; df=3; p= 0.0000
>
> Coefficients and Standard Errors...
> Variable Coeff. StdErr p
> 1 3.8102 0.1278 0.0000
> 2 -1.3225 0.2610 0.0000
> 3 0.3564 0.0655 0.0000
> Intercept -17.0582
>
> Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals...
> Variable O.R. Low -- High
> 1 45.1573 35.1488 58.0156
> 2 0.2665 0.1598 0.4445
> 3 1.4282 1.2561 1.6240
>
> Have I interpreted your advice correctly, i.e. is this a case that
> does not require further testing of individual corresponding
> coefficients, inasmuch as all four are significant and corresponding
> pairs have flipped signs?


Yes, this is such a case.


Date Subject Author
4/1/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/3/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/3/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/6/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/6/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/6/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/7/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/7/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/8/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/8/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/9/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/9/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/9/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/9/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/9/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/10/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/10/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Art Kendall
4/11/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/13/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/13/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/13/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/15/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/15/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/15/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/15/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/17/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/17/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/17/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/18/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/19/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/19/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/21/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/21/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/24/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/22/12
Read Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's program
to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/23/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/24/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/24/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/24/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/24/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/26/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/26/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/26/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/27/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/27/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/27/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/29/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/29/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/29/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/29/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/29/12
Read Your questions go to the "moment of truth" that Jacques and Arthur
may shortly be facing
Halitsky
4/29/12
Read Re: Your questions go to the "moment of truth" that Jacques and
Arthur may shortly be facing
Halitsky
4/29/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/30/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
5/1/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
5/1/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
5/1/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
5/1/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
5/1/12
Read Results for c1 study and control groups when model run WITHOUT the
four cells for shortest length interval 33-42
Halitsky
5/2/12
Read Results on c2 fold confirm peculiarity of length interval 33-42 seen
in c1 fold results
Halitsky
5/2/12
Read Model with adjusted weighting logic now works on c2 fold! (but PLEASE
review my new weighting logic !)
Halitsky
5/2/12
Read Actually, your original suggestion (input counts) works as well as
what I just posted for the c2 fold
Halitsky
5/3/12
Read Re: Actually, your original suggestion (input counts) works as well
as what I just posted for the c2 fold
Ray Koopman
5/3/12
Read Re: Actually, your original suggestion (input counts) works as well
as what I just posted for the c2 fold
Halitsky
5/3/12
Read Comparative results for {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2} & {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2,lnLx1,lnLx2}
Halitsky
5/4/12
Read Re: Comparative results for {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2} & {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2,lnLx1,lnLx2}
Ray Koopman
5/4/12
Read Re: Comparative results for {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2} & {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2,lnLx1,lnLx2}
Halitsky
5/4/12
Read Your question re significance of proportion involving counts of
01:10:01:11 inputs to Arthur's program
Halitsky
5/4/12
Read Results of both chi-square tests on all six folds
Halitsky
5/4/12
Read Re: Comparative results for {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2} & {lnL,w,lnLw,x1,x2,lnLx1,lnLx2}
Halitsky
5/4/12
Read I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't hold here.
Halitsky
5/5/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Halitsky
5/5/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Ray Koopman
5/5/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Halitsky
5/7/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Halitsky
5/7/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Halitsky
5/8/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Ray Koopman
5/8/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Halitsky
5/6/12
Read Re: I'm sending the a1 CI table off-line, since the format didn't
hold here.
Ray Koopman
5/3/12
Read Could I ask you to check this 1st test using sum of chi-squares from
study vs control cells ?
Halitsky
5/3/12
Read Re: Could I ask you to check this 1st test using sum of chi-squares
from study vs control cells ?
Ray Koopman
5/3/12
Read Re: Could I ask you to check this 1st test using sum of chi-squares
from study vs control cells ?
Halitsky
5/3/12
Read Could I ask you to check this 1st test using converged likelihoods
for study/control/pooled runs?
Halitsky
5/3/12
Read Re: Could I ask you to check this 1st test using converged
likelihoods for study/control/pooled runs?
Ray Koopman
5/3/12
Read Re: Could I ask you to check this 1st test using converged
likelihoods for study/control/pooled runs?
Halitsky
5/1/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/27/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Ray Koopman
4/28/12
Read Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....
Halitsky
4/24/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/19/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/20/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/16/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/14/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman
4/13/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Halitsky
4/8/12
Read Re: Correct way to normalize an rmsd-based distance metric used in
repeated trials of pairs
Ray Koopman

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.