R coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variableR coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variable - valid results for other variables?coxph() X matrix deemed to be singular;Survival analysis: extensions of coxphMultiple inputs for coxphcoxph : “**Error in if (any(infs)) warning(paste(”Loglik converged before variable “, : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed”**coxph in R: Error in if (any(infs)) warning(paste(“Loglik converged before variable ”How to adjusts variables in coxph (R)?R Coxph() warning message and unexpected resultscoxph in R, beta affected by value of factor?add quantile to coxph function in RR coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variable - valid results for other variables?

Self-deportation of American Citizens from US

Why did some Apollo missions carry a grenade launcher?

Anti-cheating: should there be a limit to a number of toilet breaks per game per player?

How did the SysRq key get onto modern keyboards if it's rarely used?

Nuclear breeder/reactor plant controlled by two A.I. makes too much power

Is SecureRandom.ints() secure?

Classic vs Modern Experience

Is there any app for reduce battery draining for ios 12?

Why does Canada require bilingualism in a lot of federal government posts?

Why tantalum for the Hayabusa bullets?

Why does the Rust compiler not optimize code assuming that two mutable references cannot alias?

How to improve king safety

Struggling with cyclical dependencies in unit tests

Filter search results by multiple filters in one operation

Is The Venice Syndrome documentary cover photo real?

My employer is refusing to give me the pay that was advertised after an internal job move

Why did House of Representatives need to condemn Trumps Tweets?

GNU sort stable sort when sort does not know sort order

Is it okay for me to decline a project on ethical grounds?

Is it safe if the neutral lead is exposed and disconnected?

Surviving a planet collision?

How long does it take for electricity to be considered OFF by general appliances?

Why were contact sensors put on three of the Lunar Module's four legs? Did they ever bend and stick out sideways?

Problem with Eigenvectors



R coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variable


R coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variable - valid results for other variables?coxph() X matrix deemed to be singular;Survival analysis: extensions of coxphMultiple inputs for coxphcoxph : “**Error in if (any(infs)) warning(paste(”Loglik converged before variable “, : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed”**coxph in R: Error in if (any(infs)) warning(paste(“Loglik converged before variable ”How to adjusts variables in coxph (R)?R Coxph() warning message and unexpected resultscoxph in R, beta affected by value of factor?add quantile to coxph function in RR coxph() warning: Loglik converged before variable - valid results for other variables?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








8















I'm having some trouble using coxph().
I've two categorical variables: Sex and Probable Cause, that I want to use as predictor variables. Sex is just the typical male/female but Probable Cause has 5 options.
I don't know what is the problem with the warning message. Why does the cofidence intervals are from 0 to Inf and the p-values so high?



Here's the code and the output:



> my_coxph <- coxph(Surv(tempo,status) ~ factor(Sexo)+ factor(Causa.provavel) , data=ceabn)
Warning message:
In fitter(X, Y, strats, offset, init, control, weights = weights, :
Loglik converged before variable 2,3,5,6 ; beta may be infinite.

> summary(my_coxph)
Call:
coxph(formula = Surv(tempo, status) ~ factor(Sexo) + factor(Causa.provavel),
data = ceabn)

n= 43, number of events= 31

coef exp(coef) se(coef) z Pr(>|z|)
factor(Sexo)macho 7.254e-01 2.066e+00 4.873e-01 1.488 0.137
factor(Causa.provavel)caca 2.186e+01 3.107e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 1.973e+01 3.703e+08 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 9.407e-01 2.562e+00 1.683e+04 0.000 1.000
factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.170e+01 2.655e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
factor(Causa.provavel)predado 2.276e+01 7.659e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998

exp(coef) exp(-coef) lower .95 upper .95
factor(Sexo)macho 2.065e+00 4.841e-01 0.7947 5.368
factor(Causa.provavel)caca 3.107e+09 3.219e-10 0.0000 Inf
factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 3.703e+08 2.701e-09 0.0000 Inf
factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 2.562e+00 3.904e-01 0.0000 Inf
factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.655e+09 3.766e-10 0.0000 Inf
factor(Causa.provavel)predado 7.659e+09 1.306e-10 0.0000 Inf

Concordance= 0.752 (se = 0.059 )
Rsquare= 0.608 (max possible= 0.987 )
Likelihood ratio test= 40.23 on 6 df, p=4.105e-07
Wald test = 7.46 on 6 df, p=0.2807
Score (logrank) test = 30.48 on 6 df, p=3.183e-05


Thank you










share|improve this question
































    8















    I'm having some trouble using coxph().
    I've two categorical variables: Sex and Probable Cause, that I want to use as predictor variables. Sex is just the typical male/female but Probable Cause has 5 options.
    I don't know what is the problem with the warning message. Why does the cofidence intervals are from 0 to Inf and the p-values so high?



    Here's the code and the output:



    > my_coxph <- coxph(Surv(tempo,status) ~ factor(Sexo)+ factor(Causa.provavel) , data=ceabn)
    Warning message:
    In fitter(X, Y, strats, offset, init, control, weights = weights, :
    Loglik converged before variable 2,3,5,6 ; beta may be infinite.

    > summary(my_coxph)
    Call:
    coxph(formula = Surv(tempo, status) ~ factor(Sexo) + factor(Causa.provavel),
    data = ceabn)

    n= 43, number of events= 31

    coef exp(coef) se(coef) z Pr(>|z|)
    factor(Sexo)macho 7.254e-01 2.066e+00 4.873e-01 1.488 0.137
    factor(Causa.provavel)caca 2.186e+01 3.107e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
    factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 1.973e+01 3.703e+08 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
    factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 9.407e-01 2.562e+00 1.683e+04 0.000 1.000
    factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.170e+01 2.655e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
    factor(Causa.provavel)predado 2.276e+01 7.659e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998

    exp(coef) exp(-coef) lower .95 upper .95
    factor(Sexo)macho 2.065e+00 4.841e-01 0.7947 5.368
    factor(Causa.provavel)caca 3.107e+09 3.219e-10 0.0000 Inf
    factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 3.703e+08 2.701e-09 0.0000 Inf
    factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 2.562e+00 3.904e-01 0.0000 Inf
    factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.655e+09 3.766e-10 0.0000 Inf
    factor(Causa.provavel)predado 7.659e+09 1.306e-10 0.0000 Inf

    Concordance= 0.752 (se = 0.059 )
    Rsquare= 0.608 (max possible= 0.987 )
    Likelihood ratio test= 40.23 on 6 df, p=4.105e-07
    Wald test = 7.46 on 6 df, p=0.2807
    Score (logrank) test = 30.48 on 6 df, p=3.183e-05


    Thank you










    share|improve this question




























      8












      8








      8


      3






      I'm having some trouble using coxph().
      I've two categorical variables: Sex and Probable Cause, that I want to use as predictor variables. Sex is just the typical male/female but Probable Cause has 5 options.
      I don't know what is the problem with the warning message. Why does the cofidence intervals are from 0 to Inf and the p-values so high?



      Here's the code and the output:



      > my_coxph <- coxph(Surv(tempo,status) ~ factor(Sexo)+ factor(Causa.provavel) , data=ceabn)
      Warning message:
      In fitter(X, Y, strats, offset, init, control, weights = weights, :
      Loglik converged before variable 2,3,5,6 ; beta may be infinite.

      > summary(my_coxph)
      Call:
      coxph(formula = Surv(tempo, status) ~ factor(Sexo) + factor(Causa.provavel),
      data = ceabn)

      n= 43, number of events= 31

      coef exp(coef) se(coef) z Pr(>|z|)
      factor(Sexo)macho 7.254e-01 2.066e+00 4.873e-01 1.488 0.137
      factor(Causa.provavel)caca 2.186e+01 3.107e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 1.973e+01 3.703e+08 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 9.407e-01 2.562e+00 1.683e+04 0.000 1.000
      factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.170e+01 2.655e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)predado 2.276e+01 7.659e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998

      exp(coef) exp(-coef) lower .95 upper .95
      factor(Sexo)macho 2.065e+00 4.841e-01 0.7947 5.368
      factor(Causa.provavel)caca 3.107e+09 3.219e-10 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 3.703e+08 2.701e-09 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 2.562e+00 3.904e-01 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.655e+09 3.766e-10 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)predado 7.659e+09 1.306e-10 0.0000 Inf

      Concordance= 0.752 (se = 0.059 )
      Rsquare= 0.608 (max possible= 0.987 )
      Likelihood ratio test= 40.23 on 6 df, p=4.105e-07
      Wald test = 7.46 on 6 df, p=0.2807
      Score (logrank) test = 30.48 on 6 df, p=3.183e-05


      Thank you










      share|improve this question
















      I'm having some trouble using coxph().
      I've two categorical variables: Sex and Probable Cause, that I want to use as predictor variables. Sex is just the typical male/female but Probable Cause has 5 options.
      I don't know what is the problem with the warning message. Why does the cofidence intervals are from 0 to Inf and the p-values so high?



      Here's the code and the output:



      > my_coxph <- coxph(Surv(tempo,status) ~ factor(Sexo)+ factor(Causa.provavel) , data=ceabn)
      Warning message:
      In fitter(X, Y, strats, offset, init, control, weights = weights, :
      Loglik converged before variable 2,3,5,6 ; beta may be infinite.

      > summary(my_coxph)
      Call:
      coxph(formula = Surv(tempo, status) ~ factor(Sexo) + factor(Causa.provavel),
      data = ceabn)

      n= 43, number of events= 31

      coef exp(coef) se(coef) z Pr(>|z|)
      factor(Sexo)macho 7.254e-01 2.066e+00 4.873e-01 1.488 0.137
      factor(Causa.provavel)caca 2.186e+01 3.107e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 1.973e+01 3.703e+08 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 9.407e-01 2.562e+00 1.683e+04 0.000 1.000
      factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.170e+01 2.655e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998
      factor(Causa.provavel)predado 2.276e+01 7.659e+09 9.698e+03 0.002 0.998

      exp(coef) exp(-coef) lower .95 upper .95
      factor(Sexo)macho 2.065e+00 4.841e-01 0.7947 5.368
      factor(Causa.provavel)caca 3.107e+09 3.219e-10 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)colisao linha MT 3.703e+08 2.701e-09 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)indeterminado 2.562e+00 3.904e-01 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)predacao 2.655e+09 3.766e-10 0.0000 Inf
      factor(Causa.provavel)predado 7.659e+09 1.306e-10 0.0000 Inf

      Concordance= 0.752 (se = 0.059 )
      Rsquare= 0.608 (max possible= 0.987 )
      Likelihood ratio test= 40.23 on 6 df, p=4.105e-07
      Wald test = 7.46 on 6 df, p=0.2807
      Score (logrank) test = 30.48 on 6 df, p=3.183e-05


      Thank you







      r survival-analysis categorical-data cox-regression






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Oct 14 '13 at 21:50







      JMarcelino

















      asked Oct 14 '13 at 21:07









      JMarcelinoJMarcelino

      3782 gold badges9 silver badges19 bronze badges




      3782 gold badges9 silver badges19 bronze badges

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13














          When I asked Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival) about that several years ago he said the test that is being triggered to generate that warning is overly sensitive. Generally the warning is not correct. You can usually just look at your coefficients to see that they are not infinite



          In your case, however, it seems to be correctly warning you that there may be problems with your data, since you have implausibly large coefficients. A beta coefficient of 2.276e+01 (= 22.7) in an exponential model is just ridiculously high. The estimated relative risk is well over a million! You should be looking at tabular classifications of your data for problems of complete separation. Did any of your control group die, er, have an event?






          share|improve this answer



























          • I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

            – JMarcelino
            Oct 23 '13 at 17:24











          • Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

            – vasili111
            Mar 26 at 16:59










          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f19369314%2fr-coxph-warning-loglik-converged-before-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          13














          When I asked Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival) about that several years ago he said the test that is being triggered to generate that warning is overly sensitive. Generally the warning is not correct. You can usually just look at your coefficients to see that they are not infinite



          In your case, however, it seems to be correctly warning you that there may be problems with your data, since you have implausibly large coefficients. A beta coefficient of 2.276e+01 (= 22.7) in an exponential model is just ridiculously high. The estimated relative risk is well over a million! You should be looking at tabular classifications of your data for problems of complete separation. Did any of your control group die, er, have an event?






          share|improve this answer



























          • I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

            – JMarcelino
            Oct 23 '13 at 17:24











          • Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

            – vasili111
            Mar 26 at 16:59















          13














          When I asked Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival) about that several years ago he said the test that is being triggered to generate that warning is overly sensitive. Generally the warning is not correct. You can usually just look at your coefficients to see that they are not infinite



          In your case, however, it seems to be correctly warning you that there may be problems with your data, since you have implausibly large coefficients. A beta coefficient of 2.276e+01 (= 22.7) in an exponential model is just ridiculously high. The estimated relative risk is well over a million! You should be looking at tabular classifications of your data for problems of complete separation. Did any of your control group die, er, have an event?






          share|improve this answer



























          • I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

            – JMarcelino
            Oct 23 '13 at 17:24











          • Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

            – vasili111
            Mar 26 at 16:59













          13












          13








          13







          When I asked Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival) about that several years ago he said the test that is being triggered to generate that warning is overly sensitive. Generally the warning is not correct. You can usually just look at your coefficients to see that they are not infinite



          In your case, however, it seems to be correctly warning you that there may be problems with your data, since you have implausibly large coefficients. A beta coefficient of 2.276e+01 (= 22.7) in an exponential model is just ridiculously high. The estimated relative risk is well over a million! You should be looking at tabular classifications of your data for problems of complete separation. Did any of your control group die, er, have an event?






          share|improve this answer















          When I asked Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival) about that several years ago he said the test that is being triggered to generate that warning is overly sensitive. Generally the warning is not correct. You can usually just look at your coefficients to see that they are not infinite



          In your case, however, it seems to be correctly warning you that there may be problems with your data, since you have implausibly large coefficients. A beta coefficient of 2.276e+01 (= 22.7) in an exponential model is just ridiculously high. The estimated relative risk is well over a million! You should be looking at tabular classifications of your data for problems of complete separation. Did any of your control group die, er, have an event?







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Oct 15 '13 at 0:09

























          answered Oct 14 '13 at 22:15









          42-42-

          220k16 gold badges278 silver badges412 bronze badges




          220k16 gold badges278 silver badges412 bronze badges















          • I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

            – JMarcelino
            Oct 23 '13 at 17:24











          • Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

            – vasili111
            Mar 26 at 16:59

















          • I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

            – JMarcelino
            Oct 23 '13 at 17:24











          • Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

            – vasili111
            Mar 26 at 16:59
















          I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

          – JMarcelino
          Oct 23 '13 at 17:24





          I've 31 events in 43. But I think you're right, I had messed up data.

          – JMarcelino
          Oct 23 '13 at 17:24













          Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

          – vasili111
          Mar 26 at 16:59





          Link to answer of Terry Therneau (author of pkg:survival): stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2008-September/174201.html

          – vasili111
          Mar 26 at 16:59








          Got a question that you can’t ask on public Stack Overflow? Learn more about sharing private information with Stack Overflow for Teams.







          Got a question that you can’t ask on public Stack Overflow? Learn more about sharing private information with Stack Overflow for Teams.



















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f19369314%2fr-coxph-warning-loglik-converged-before-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          SQL error code 1064 with creating Laravel foreign keysForeign key constraints: When to use ON UPDATE and ON DELETEDropping column with foreign key Laravel error: General error: 1025 Error on renameLaravel SQL Can't create tableLaravel Migration foreign key errorLaravel php artisan migrate:refresh giving a syntax errorSQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists or Base table or view already exists: 1050 Tableerror in migrating laravel file to xampp serverSyntax error or access violation: 1064:syntax to use near 'unsigned not null, modelName varchar(191) not null, title varchar(191) not nLaravel cannot create new table field in mysqlLaravel 5.7:Last migration creates table but is not registered in the migration table

          용인 삼성생명 블루밍스 목차 통계 역대 감독 선수단 응원단 경기장 같이 보기 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴samsungblueminx.comeh선수 명단용인 삼성생명 블루밍스용인 삼성생명 블루밍스ehsamsungblueminx.comeheheheh

          155 수학 과학 기타 둘러보기 메뉴eh추가해eh문서를 완성해