Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Help with multiple regression
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  3 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
jabs  
View profile  
 More options Jul 2, 3:52 pm
From: jabs <jabenavi...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, Jul 2 2009 3:52 pm
Subject: Help with multiple regression
Hello folks
I am a physician who works in Mexico. I would like to predict the
weight of a fetus before birth through ultrasound measurements. There
are many studies which have published an equation or a formulae in
order to estimate fetal weight, and the equation has been obtained
from independent variables (parameters of ultrasound). Unfortunately,
none of  these studies has been done in Mexican population.
I have collected the birth weight (dependent variable) of almost 500
newborns (NB). I hav also collected 13 ultrasound measurements
(independent variables) per fetus in the 48 hours prior to birth
(prenatal stage). My goal is to find an equation or formula to predict
the weight of the baby using ultrasound variables (independent
variables). I have read about this and I think I have to run a linear
regression in which the dependent variable would be the birth weight,
and ultrasound variables would be included as independent variables.
According to what I have read, I have to choose a selection of
variables backwards method  by which I will obtain a linear model. The
problem is that I have no experience on how to perform this. Even
though, I have tried to do it using SPSS software and after running
the regression, at the results window I get a series of data such us
tables (descriptive statistics, correlation, included/deleted
variables, a summary model, ANOVA, analysis of colinearity, excluded
variables), and Graphics. What is the right way to run the multiple
regression? How can I get the model from these data? Which data must
be included in the equation? Thanks in advance for your help.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "{MEDSTATS} Help with multiple regression" by Doug Altman
Doug Altman  
View profile  
 More options Jul 2, 6:23 pm
From: Doug Altman <doug.alt...@csm.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:23:27 +0100
Local: Thurs, Jul 2 2009 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: {MEDSTATS} Help with multiple regression

I am no more in favour of saying that one should never use stepwise
selection than saying that one should always do so. I do not think
that a model with 13 variables would make sense or be necessary, but
with 500 individuals and a continuous outcome I would doubt that
there would be much bias from eliminating variables. However it may
be sensible to examine which variables have been included in earlier
models and exclude hose which never feature. There are bigger
problems. As others have noted, there will inevitably be high
correlations between different measurements of fetal size. However,
other groups have used standard regression methods and derived
equations that predict well.

You are trying to explain variability in (essentially) a measure of
volume using (I assume) linear and circumferential dimensions. It may
be that one or more of these variables may have a non-linear relation
with birth weight. Investigating nonlinearity is not straightforward.
Some form of model stability exercise may be worthwhile, eg using bootstrap.

The following paper - in which 29 formulae are reviewed - may be useful:

Scioscia M, Vimercati A, Ceci O, Vicino M, Selvaggi LE.
Estimation of birth weight by two-dimensional ultrasonography: a
critical appraisal of its accuracy.
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):57-65.

Handling this type of problem requires good judgement as well as
several technical considerations (as evidenced by some of the earlier
replies). My advice is to find a statistician with relevant
experience to work with you on these data.

Good luck
Doug

At 20:52 02/07/2009, jabs wrote:

_____________________________________________________

Doug Altman
Professor of Statistics in Medicine
Centre for Statistics in Medicine
University of Oxford
Wolfson College Annexe
Linton Road
Oxford OX2 6UD

email:  doug.alt...@csm.ox.ac.uk
Tel:    01865 284400 (direct line 01865 284401)
Fax:    01865 284424
www:    http://www.csm-oxford.org.uk/

EQUATOR Network - resources for reporting research
www: <http://www.equator-network.org/>http://www.equator-network.org/


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Barry McDonald  
View profile  
 More options Jul 2, 7:32 pm
From: Barry McDonald <b.mcdon...@massey.ac.nz>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:32:40 +1200
Local: Thurs, Jul 2 2009 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: {MEDSTATS} Help with multiple regression

There are some interesting issues that arise in this problem.

1.   Taking a step back from the actual query (how to devise a
formula for use in a Mexican context) I wonder why one needs a
specifically Mexican formula for what is essentially a physical
relationship between physical measurements.   True the birthweight
measurements themselves might all average out to be smaller (say)
than US averages,  but conditional upon country, why should the
physical relationship {ultrasound --> birthweight | Mexico} have a
different formula than {ultrasound --> birthweight | US

}  or  {ultrasound --> birthweight | US } say,  apart from the

intercept?  Does the type of  ultrasound measurements taken differ
from country? Is there some sort of genetic hypothesis that Mexicans
have (say) longer femurs for the same birthweight than US or UK?

2.   Following on from 1,  if there are formulas that others have
suggested, and perhaps they devised those by stepwise
regression,  then your data provide a great opportunity to test those
formulas. Their formulas provide a genuine prior hypothesis for you,
and the p-values you get from testing the variables included in their
models should be (waving hands) a lot more valid than the p-values
from stepwise regression.   It is at least as much a  contribution to
science to test someone else's model for validity as it is to come up
with yet another of many suggested regression formulae based on
stepwise.  (In fact there would be nothing to stop you  publishing
both an evaluation and your own "best stepwise" formula in the sense
that it is a data summary that lets your data speak for itself in the
same way as other datasets have.)

   So  a.)  one can compare others' overall models on your data to
see which does best.   Use Mean squared error of
prediction.  (perhaps standardise all variable   first to avoid
needing an intercept)
b.) For variable selection,   I would start by looking through the
ultrasound literature for the most commonly used and most significant
variable, test that in your data, then after including it (if
significant) check whether the next most common significant variable
is needed, etc.,  in sequence.       (Wiser heads than mine might
suggest a reference for a better methodology for assessing several
competing models. )

3.  To get a better understanding of your  data I would suggest doing
principal components first, save the scores, then regressing those
scores on the birthweight.  The first PC will probably be a measure
of overall size of the fetus, and have all numbers in the first
column of the component matrix (eigenvector coefficients of the
transformation) with similar values,  indicating that all
measurements tend to be big together or all small together,   and
this  will be very significantly related to the birthweight.  If you
get any other significant scores, then they will tell you whether
particular measurements (or combinations or ratios of
measurements)  are related to the response in the sense that they
tweak the first overall size effect of the first PC.    To understand
any other significant scores, look at the numbers in the
corresponding column of the component matrix.  Numbers that are big
(>0.3, say) and of the same sign indicate important variables in the
direction of increasing or decreasing birthweight;  number that are
big and of opposite sign may represent ratios that are of interest
(e.g. bigger skull to femur ratio may be important  - total guess
here since I know next to nothing about ultrasound measurements. )

Hope something here is useful,
regards,   Barry

At 07:52 a.m. 3/07/2009, jabs wrote:


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google