On Di, 2018-04-10 at 16:09 +0200, Kaushal, Mayank wrote:
> I appreciate your providing the pros and cons associated with both
> options.
>
> Lets say for now we want to pursue option 2.
>
> My understating is that since you recommend not to include ‘visit’
> and 'time_from_baseline’ in the same
I appreciate your providing the pros and cons associated with both options.
Lets say for now we want to pursue option 2.
My understating is that since you recommend not to include ‘visit’ and
'time_from_baseline’ in the same model, one of the steps in creating MLE model
for option 2 would be
On Mo, 2018-04-09 at 19:53 +0200, Kaushal, Mayank wrote:
> I am indeed considering LME model since I have multiple visits (4)
> for each subject and multiple groups (3).
>
> Based on your response, I am inclined to include the following.
>
> Intercept - random variable
> Slope (time_base_scan) -
I am indeed considering LME model since I have multiple visits (4) for each
subject and multiple groups (3).
Based on your response, I am inclined to include the following.
Intercept - random variable
Slope (time_base_scan) - random variable
As I am including time_base_scan as the random
Hello,
this is somewhat difficult to answer, so the following is a personal
opinion.
I think the first question is whether your would like to go for a) a
cross-sectional design or b) a longitudinal design.
If a), you'd have a single scan per subject (e.g., baseline) and could
discard the
The continuous variable in my analysis is time_base_scan with the time points
evaluated by me being of acute and subacute nature.
However, due to the small differences in time elapsed between successive visits
(duration between visits is a couple of weeks), is it possible to simply model
LME
Hello,
please find my responses below.
Best regards,
Kersten
On Do, 2018-03-29 at 00:11 +0200, Kaushal, Mayank wrote:
Hi Kersten,
Apologies for the delay. I am still in the process of trying to figure out the
gaps in my understanding and would appreciate your inputs.
I created the design X
the
> tutorial example).
>
> Again, this procedure and the matrices M and X are specific for this
> particular analysis scenario and cannot necessarily be generalized to
> others.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kersten
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Kaushal,
to:mkaus...@mcw.edu>>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list
<freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
To: Freesurfer support list
<freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Line
rs.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kersten
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu<mailto:mkaus...@mcw.edu>>
> Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
> To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@
urfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:48:36 +0100
I have made the suggested edits and would appreciate if you could take
a look at the qdec.table.dat file attached to this conversation.
After
Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:48:36 +0100
I h
.
Best regards,
Kersten
-Original Message-
From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed E
ilto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
To: Freesurfer support list
<freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:47:36 +0100
The version string I have been using:
$Revis
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:17:31 +0100
After downloading version 6.0. and running lhstats =
lme_mass_fit_vw(X,[1 2],Y,ni,lhcortex,[],1), I received the following
errors.
ushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:17:31 +0100
After download
ersions should not be mixed in general.
>
> Best,
>
> Kersten
>
>
>
> --Original Message-
> From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
> Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
> To: Freesurfer support list <freesu
cw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (LME) Model
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:47:36 +0100
The version string I have been using:
$Revision:
d in Matlab's preferences menu (--> see the
>> Parallel Computing toolbox section).
>>
>> As an alternative, using two workers might also be an option in your
>> case:
>>
>> lhstats = lme_mass_fit_vw(X,[1 2],Y,ni,lhcortex,[],2)
>>
>> To get this
issues.
Best regards,
Kersten
-Original Message-
From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Running Line
ng, I did not have to change the
> Matlab preferences.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Kersten
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
> Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
> To: fre
lps,
Kersten
-Original Message-
From: "Kaushal, Mayank" <mkaus...@mcw.edu>
Reply-to: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Freesurfer] Running Linear Mixed Effects (
Dear Freesurfer Community,
Running lhstats = lme_mass_fit_vw(X,[1 2],Y,ni,lhcortex); gives the following
error,
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
Error using parpool (line 104)
You requested a minimum of 8 workers, but the cluster "local" has the
NumWorkers property
23 matches
Mail list logo
