Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Include intercept in get_coeffs calls #1089

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tsalo
Copy link
Member

@tsalo tsalo commented Apr 22, 2024

Closes none. I was just thinking that we should include an intercept term when calculating echo-wise betas.

Changes proposed in this pull request:

@tsalo tsalo added the enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project label Apr 22, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.79%. Comparing base (af5e99a) to head (04278f1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1089      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.80%   89.79%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        3540     3537       -3     
  Branches      621      621              
==========================================
- Hits         3179     3176       -3     
  Misses        212      212              
  Partials      149      149              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Apr 22, 2024

Weirdly, including the intercept didn't change anything. I'm not sure why. All of the other components should have mean values of zero, right? So how could raw echo-wise time series (i.e., with different scales) have the same OLS fit with and without an intercept term?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant