On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 07:09:03AM -0400, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
[...]
> No, cph is essentially a wrapper for coxph and uses the same computations.
> The problem is that Deb did not read the documentation to summary.Design
> nor the Overview of the Design package.
And obviously that I didn'
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, [iso-8859-1] Göran Broström wrote:
> More seriously, the difference may well be of numerical character,
> different convergence criteria, "unbalanced" data, etc. It is really
> impossible to say without knowing what your data are (and without looking
> into the code of coxph an
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:07:07 +0200
Göran Broström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:01:36PM -0700, Deb Montgomery wrote:
> > Hi. I am using Windows version of R 1.8.1. Being somewhat new to
> > survival analysis, I am trying to compare cph (Design) with coxph
> > (survival) f
Göran Broström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:01:36PM -0700, Deb Montgomery wrote:
> > Hi. I am using Windows version of R 1.8.1. Being somewhat new to survival
> > analysis, I am trying to compare cph (Design) with coxph (survival) for use
> > with a survival data set.
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:01:36PM -0700, Deb Montgomery wrote:
> Hi. I am using Windows version of R 1.8.1. Being somewhat new to survival
> analysis, I am trying to compare cph (Design) with coxph (survival) for use
> with a survival data set.
>
> I was wondering why cph and coxph provide me wit
Hi. I am using Windows version of R 1.8.1. Being somewhat new to survival
analysis, I am trying to compare cph (Design) with coxph (survival) for use
with a survival data set.
I was wondering why cph and coxph provide me with different confidence
intervals
for the hazard ratios for one of the vari
