Thanks Terry!
I thought that since I was providing survConcordance with the model object
that the same formula would be applied. But I was obviously wrong. I just
ran survConcordance with the addition of the strata argument, as you
suggested, and got the same answer as summary(fit)with the
I read the digest form which puts me behind, plus the last 2 days have been solid meetings
with an external advisory group so I missed the initial query. Three responses.
1. The clogit routine sets the data up properly and then calls a stratified Cox model. If
you want the survConcordance
ecerad...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:48 PM
> To: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: [R] Survival::coxph (clogit), survConcordance vs. summary(fit)
> concordance
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm running conditional logistic regression with survival::clogit. I have
> "1
er(site), method ="efron",
data = dat) # no warning
summary(fit)
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Joe Ceradini [mailto:joecerad...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:48 PM
To: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: [R] Survival::coxph (clogit), survConcordance vs. summary(fit)
Hi,
I'm running conditional logistic regression with survival::clogit. I have
"1-1 case-control" data, i.e., there is 1 case and 1 control in each strata.
Model:
fit <- clogit(resp ~ x1 + x2, strata(ID), cluster(site), method ="efron",
data = dat)
Where resp is 1's and 0's, and x1 and x2 are
5 matches
Mail list logo
