-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
Random effects/frailty models? #185
Comments
There's no technique in flexsurv to do random effects that I know of. There is other software that would support this class of model e.g. frailtypack in R, or Bayesian software such as Stan (e.g. starting from https://mc-stan.org/docs/2_18/stan-users-guide/censored-data.html to represent censoring, then building up your model piece by piece in Stan code). Is your goal to adjust the variance of some estimate of interest to account for clustering? And your mention of
This would assume that the amount of variance inflation is independent of the baseline distribution. I'd expect this is a weak assumption, though I don't have practical experience with doing this. |
Thanks for your suggestions, I'll explore them in detail. For a bit of context: Can I'll continue to explore my possibilities. Thanks again |
I'm not aware of any way of placing covariates on ancillary parameters in survreg, but it's not my package. Also I think the "location/scale" setup that survreg uses would be restricted to two-parameter distributions. |
From the vignette:
Is there any workaround for this? I am working with a highly heterogeneous system, so my experiments have several technical replicates. I was using
cluster()
in theformula
argument of myflexsurvreg
model thinking it would do the job, but replicate is being treated as a main effect (significant...)I want to account for the variation across replicates in my model, but I don't want to treat it as a main effect. Is there anything I can do?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: