Re: [R] In fact this is a Stats question, but... "The return."... Again!

From: <eesteves_at_ualg.pt>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:39:58 +0200

Dear All,
I suspect I'm becoming a bit anoying but... following the "question" about the low r2 vs signific regression (thru ANCOVA), the reviewer suggested (and I quote here):

'If you used RNA/DNA ratios as the dependent variable, but gut content as the independent variable, and fish length as the covariate you would be able to state that ?Gut content had no significant influence on RNA/DNA ratios after controlling for fish length?'.

Is it possible/sensible to perform ANCOVA with a indep (categ) var (e.g. factor GUT in the previous msg) and a continuous covariate (larval length)? If yes, how can I do it in R? I can not figure it out by myself!

Thanks again. Regards, Eduardo

Quoting Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk>:

> eesteves@ualg.pt wrote:
>> *Thanks* all those who took the time to help me (even if the
>> "question" was not related to - the use of - R).
>>
>> Now I think I can soundly make my point w/ the referee (can I use
>> your replies? If so I intend to properly cite its use?!?).
> In general, I think it is best not to cite this kind of replies, at
> least not in publications. Steve E's note is a bit of an eye-opener
> in that regard: There could in fact be serious problems in your
> analysis without respondents realizing it (e.g., you could have 1700
> larvae, but they came from only 10 batches of eggs with a strong
> within-batch correlation). Judging from the text below I wouldn't
> expect that this is the case, but the risk is there. The general
> problem is that it is very difficult to give credit without also
> assigning some level of responsibility.
>
> -pd
>>
>> Regards, Eduardo Esteves
>>
>> ps - Sorry for not explaining the "biological details" of my
>> posting: RNA/DNA is the ratio of RNA content to DNA content
>> obtained for individual fish larvae (plus for each one I noted if
>> it had visible prey items in the gut or not, thus the levels Prey
>> and Empty of factor Gut); and sl is the standard length (distance
>> from the tip of snout to the posterior extremity of the hypurals,
>> the expanded bones at the end of the backbone that support the
>> caudal fin, in mm) of the specimens. In the MS, I consider the
>> relationship RNA/DNA to sl to be biologically irrelevant (due to
>> the very low r2) although statistically significant. Furthermore,
>> no effect of gut content upon that relationship is significant
>> (facilitating further analysis of pooled data).
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
>
> --
> O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ุster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
> c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
> (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
> ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard_at_biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
>
>
>



R-help_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Mon 02 Jun 2008 - 06:43:00 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Mon 02 Jun 2008 - 07:30:38 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive