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 ]
Halitsky

Posts: 600
Registered: 2/3/09
Re: Our first control group result is precisely how we want AML's
program to behave with control group data ....

Posted: Apr 30, 2012 6:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Thank you so much, Ray. I think I understand now, and also understand
why I was confused.

But please let me play it back to you in my own words so you can see
if I have it right.


1. Procedure 1: using the "likelihoods" to get a chi-square to take
into the table.

If I follow the procedure based on the "likelihoods":

"Fit the model to the pooled data for the two groups, and take the
Converged value of -2 Log Likelihood. Subtract the sum of the
Converged values from fitting the same model to each group
separately.
The result is a chi-square with df = the number of parameters in the
model (in this case, 4: the three predictors, plus the intercept). If
the chi-square is significant then the two groups differ. If it's not
significant then you can't say the groups are the same; all you can
say is that there isn't sufficient evidence to say that the groups
differ. "

then WITHOUT using any 2x2 "abcd" table, I will get a chi-square that
I can take directly into the table (with df=4). This is the chi-
square that results simply from:

a) pooling the study and control group data, running the model on
these pooled data, and getting a "pooled" converged value
b) summing the converged values from the separate study group and
control group runs;
c) substracting this sum from the "pooled" converged value.

Is what I just wrote correct? If so, then the only reason why I was
confused is that I incorrectly thought that I had to use an "abcd"
table somewhere in the procedure.

2. Procedure 2: getting chi-squares from the individual n0's and n1's
for each corresponding row of study and control group. (This is the
proceduree I always understood, except I didn't understand the
relationship between chi-square and z (chi-square = square of z.)

In particular, this is the procedure in which I constrruct an "abcd"
table like the one you gave:

n0 n1 n prop
Study a = 1521 b = 95 1616 95/1616 = .0588
Control c = 28 d = 6 34 6/34 = .1765

from each pair of corresponding rows in the study and the control
group.

After constructing each abcd table, I can either compute z manually as
you indicated, or get the chi-square using the tool.

If I compute the z's manually, I sum them and take the resulting chi-
square into the table with df = "number of cells" (now typically 32,
except for the case of the a3 fold where it was reduce to 12.)

If I let the tool compute chi-square for each abcd table, I sum these
and take the resulting chi-squarre into the table with df = "number of
cells".

Is what I just wrote correct?

If so, one other question: if I wanted to find a table online that I
can take z's into, instead of an online table that I can take chi-
aquares into, how would you advise that I Google to find one? In
other words, what is the technical name for this "z-table"?

3. Finally, if I understand your previous posts correctly, then of
the two procedures which I've recapitulated above, the first is best
for our immediate purposes, because it "abstracts" away from the
particulars of the situation (like whether the regressions are "real"
logistic regressions, etc.

Correct?

If all the above is correct, then I thank you very very much for your
patience and time you took to clarify.



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.