2
$\begingroup$

I would appreciate any help. I am trying to fit a nonlinear mixed model to some experiments. I have adopted a Gompertz function (y=Asym*exp(-b2*b3^x)), and the data used is 3 years of experiments (the doses were not always the same and I removed some outliers before any analysis). Moreover, since the measurements were destructive, it is not a repeated measure case. I am fitting a nested model in R (nlme package, tried with lme4 as well). The data are here. The final model adopted by now is:

model <- nlme(y ~ SSgompertz(x,Asym,b2,b3),
              data = Data,
              fixed = Asym + b2 + b3 ~ 1,
              random = Asym ~ 1|Experiment/Treatment,
              start = c(Asym = 5, b2 = 30, b3 = 0.8), 
              verbose = T, na.action = na.omit, method="ML",
              control = nlmeControl(maxIter=100000, opt="nlminb", pnlsTol=0.01)) 

In relation to diagnosis plots:

enter image description here

  1. There does not seem to be a normality problem.
  2. There isn't a problem with autocorrelation. However, if I can include an autocorrelation structure between groups, I think the model can be improved.
  3. There is increasing variability. So including a heterogeneous variance for the error term will improve the model and will help to deal with the heteroscedasticity.

The summary of the model gives a high negative correlation between b2 and b3 parameters. I am not sure how bad is this.

So my questions is: How can I correctly specify a correlation structure? I have been trying different ways and methods for the correlation function without success. On the other hand, the inclusion of weights and more random effects did not improve the model. I was planning to include a covariate but this option has not been implemented for nested models in nlme. So, in addition to specifying a correlation structure, how could I improve the model's results?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Please find a better way for sharing data next time. See: stackoverflow.com/a/5963610/1412059 $\endgroup$ – Roland Jan 27 '17 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Roland: Sorry, I will take it into account next time. $\endgroup$ – User1234 Jan 27 '17 at 14:56
1
$\begingroup$

Disclaimer: In the following I'll assume that your random structure is correct. I cannot judge that without more information and it would be beyond the scope of one question anyway.

Let's plot your data:

library(ggplot2)
ggplot(Data, aes(x = x, y = y, color = factor(Experiment))) +
  geom_point() +
  facet_wrap(~ Treatmen)

resulting plot

What we see there is increasing scatter with increasing x-values. That's what you see as heterogeneity from your model too. You don't need a correlation structure, but need to consider the structure of the variance. You could add a variance structure to your model, but then fitting the model becomes difficult and computationally expensive. I couldn't manage a successful and reasonable fit.

The obvious alternative would be fitting a model on the log scale. However, there is a problem with your data:

summary(Data$y)
#    Min.  1st Qu.   Median     Mean  3rd Qu.     Max. 
# 0.00000  0.06545  0.99720  2.12000  3.59700 10.39000 

You have exact zero values in your data. A Gompertz function does not give exact zeros. That's the limit for x going to minus infinity. Since these values were probably measured, I assume they were below the detection limit. That's not the same as zero. Thus, I'd exclude them from analysis.

Data2 <- Data[Data$y > 0,]
ggplot(Data2, aes(x = x, y = log(y), color = factor(Experiment))) +
  geom_point() +
  facet_wrap(~ Treatmen)

plot 2

That looks better.

Now, the Gompertz function is:

$y = A \cdot \exp{(-\beta_2 \cdot \beta_3^x)}$

On the log-scale:

$\ln{y} = \alpha - \beta_2 \cdot \beta_3^x$

Let's fit that (you need to adjust the starting values, the estimates from the original model are helpful here):

mod2 <- nlme(log(y) ~ a - b2 * b3^x,
             data = Data2,
             fixed = a + b2 + b3 ~ 1,
             random = a ~ 1|Experiment/Treatmen,
             start = c(a = log(5), b2 = 15, b3 = 0.995), 
             verbose = T, na.action = na.omit, method="ML",
             control = nlmeControl(maxIter=100, opt="nlminb", pnlsTol=0.01))

plot(mod2)

residual plot

Back-transform coefficient for asymptote:

coefs <- coef(mod2)
coefs$Asym <- exp(coefs$a)
#            a     b2        b3     Asym
#1/1 1.4106169 15.722 0.9928132 4.098483
#1/2 1.6317404 15.722 0.9928132 5.112765
#1/4 1.7736012 15.722 0.9928132 5.892034
#1/6 1.6848617 15.722 0.9928132 5.391705
#1/8 1.8593160 15.722 0.9928132 6.419344
#2/1 1.1390170 15.722 0.9928132 3.123696
#2/3 1.3801606 15.722 0.9928132 3.975540
#2/5 1.6804342 15.722 0.9928132 5.367886
#2/9 1.7479048 15.722 0.9928132 5.742558
#3/1 0.8431604 15.722 0.9928132 2.323699
#3/3 1.7521368 15.722 0.9928132 5.766912
#3/5 1.5909919 15.722 0.9928132 4.908616
#3/7 1.6985093 15.722 0.9928132 5.465793
#3/9 1.6921572 15.722 0.9928132 5.431184

Data$pred <- exp(predict(mod2, newdata = Data))

ggplot(Data, aes(x = x, y = y, color = factor(Experiment))) +
  geom_point() +
  geom_line(aes(y = pred)) +
  facet_wrap(~ Treatmen)

plot with predictions

Regarding the high correlation between parameters: There is nothing you can do about that other than using a model with less parameters, getting more data or determining parameters independently in additional experiments. Sometimes re-parameterization of the model can help too.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. Performing the log-transformation caused an autocorrelation problem (the other diagnosis plots are fine). So, I think is compulsory to add a correlation structure now? $\endgroup$ – User1234 Jan 30 '17 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ How did you test auto-correlation? I wouldn't expect pronounced auto-correlation with such a low number of distinct values per subject. Note that you should do the acf plot for each subject separately. $\endgroup$ – Roland Jan 30 '17 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ The functions wich I used are: acf(residuals(mod2)) , pacf(residuals(mod2, retype="normalized")) $\endgroup$ – User1234 Jan 30 '17 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ You need to do this stratified by subject. $\endgroup$ – Roland Jan 30 '17 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the advice. I will explore that. Very much appreciated for the help. $\endgroup$ – User1234 Jan 30 '17 at 17:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.