Clarify February 2003

clarify@lists.gking.harvard.edu

2 participants
2 discussions

by Stefano Marinello, VID-Software GmbH

Wir sind überzeugt, dass Sie unsern SQLArtist testen sollten! Mit dem SQLArtist verwalten Sie auch komplexe Datenbanken mühelos und sicher. - Editieren von DB-Strukturen - SQL-Scripts erstellen (Wizard) - DB-Versions-Verwaltung - Möglichkeit der Anbindung an Borland Delphi und PowerDesigner - und noch viele weitere Funktionen URL zu Produktebeschreibung und Download Vollversion: http://www.vid-software.com/prod_sqlartist.php Mit freundlichen Grüssen VID-Software GmbH Stefano Marinello Hofstrasse 99 8620 Wetzikon Switzerland ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Um sich von dieser Mailingliste abzumelden http://www.vid-software.com/newsletter/lists/?p=unsubscribe&hash=1db757e191… Um Ihre Benutzerdaten zu manipulieren http://www.vid-software.com/newsletter/lists/?p=preferences&uid=1db757e1914… -- Clarify mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center [Un]Subscribe/View Archive: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=clarify

21 years, 2 months

RE: follow-up

by Jason Wittenberg

Karl, weibulls can be difficult to interpret because sometimes huge numbers get (randomly) drawn from the distribution. these outlier draws can result in means that are much much larger than anticipated. there are two ways you can check your work. first, try looking at the median rather than the mean. second, to see whether clarify is at fault, try using stata's "predict" command to generate predicted values. this command does not produce the same output as clarify (at least not in its default mode), but if you continue to get nonsensical results at least you will have narrowed the source of the problem. best wishes on your research! Jason At 08:27 AM 2/4/2003 +1300, you wrote: >jason: thanks for getting back to me. i eventually realized what the >problem was: clarify does not support 'streg' stata command but it does >support the 'weibull' command (i didnt know there was a weibull command). >i tried estsimp with competing risks weibull and it worked but i got >really high predicted duration times that made no sense. maybe my models >are bad. ... > >so now i am trying to figure out how to do competing risks followed by >clarify. for some reason i think problem may be if there are only a few >failures (in my case as low as 16 in a sample of 90) it becomes trickier. >any thoughts? > >regards, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Wittenberg [mailto:jwittenberg@wcfia.harvard.edu] > Sent: Tue 4/02/2003 8:16 a.m. > To: Karl DeRouen > Cc: > Subject: Fwd: follow-up > > > -- Clarify mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center [Un]Subscribe/View Archive: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=clarify

21 years, 2 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Clarify February 2003