1
$\begingroup$

can you help me please?

In this model, the interpretation of the continuous variable tmax for an example would be: a increase 1 unit of tmax (exp(coef)=1.06) increases in 6% the incidence of disease in a month. Considering that casos = monthly number of cases of the disease, and populacao variable being used as offset representing the population in each city (municipio).

Is this interpretation correct?

summary(m1<- glm.nb(casos ~ 0 + municipio + precip_ant + tmax + tmax_ant + umid + umid_ant + enxu_2 + offset(log(populacao)), data = dataset))

Call:
glm.nb(formula = casos ~ 0 + municipio + precip_ant + tmax + 
    tmax_ant + umid + umid_ant + enxu_2 + offset(log(populacao)), 
    data = dataset, init.theta = 2.105944887, link = log)

Deviance Residuals: 
    Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max  
-2.1763  -1.0107  -0.6286   0.3874   4.2286  

Coefficients:
             Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
municipio6 -2.566e+01  1.698e+00 -15.110  < 2e-16 ***
municipio1 -2.406e+01  1.706e+00 -14.108  < 2e-16 ***
municipio2 -2.424e+01  1.707e+00 -14.205  < 2e-16 ***
municipio3 -2.530e+01  1.696e+00 -14.914  < 2e-16 ***
municipio4 -2.525e+01  1.701e+00 -14.846  < 2e-16 ***
municipio5 -2.524e+01  1.702e+00 -14.829  < 2e-16 ***
precip_ant  1.750e-03  6.414e-04   2.728 0.006373 ** 
tmax        6.291e-02  1.922e-02   3.273 0.001066 ** 
tmax_ant    1.600e-01  1.995e-02   8.020 1.06e-15 ***
umid        2.665e-02  1.230e-02   2.166 0.030297 *  
umid_ant    5.555e-02  1.454e-02   3.820 0.000134 ***
enxu_2      3.154e-01  2.074e-01   1.521 0.128384    
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

(Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(2.1059) family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 41285.6  on 1008  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance:  1002.5  on  996  degrees of freedom
AIC: 2702.5

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 1


              Theta:  2.106 
          Std. Err.:  0.308 

 2 x log-likelihood:  -2676.499 

> exp(coef(m1))
  municipio6   municipio1   municipio2   municipio3   municipio4   municipio5   precip_ant         tmax     tmax_ant 
7.171204e-12 3.553106e-11 2.963580e-11 1.033429e-11 1.082516e-11 1.089931e-11 1.001751e+00 1.064932e+00 1.173543e+00 
        umid     umid_ant       enxu_2 
1.027009e+00 1.057120e+00 1.370790e+00 
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I think it is mostly correct, yes.

In a Negative Binomial (NB) regression model with no offset, the 6.291e-02 coefficient would represent the change in the log of the expected count of the monthly number of cases of the disease for a one-unit increase in the corresponding predictor variable tmax, while holding all other predictor variables constant. i.e. the expected count would be multiplied by ($\exp(6.291\text{E-02})$=) 1.06 for a one-unit increase in tmax. Because though our NB regression model has an offset this increase is against the expected rate. The post uses the term: "incidence of disease" which I think is somewhat open to interpretation, it is probably to explicitly say: "incidence rate of disease" but aside from that the interpretation is good to go.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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