Hi Mahinda,
make sure to include previous correspondence so that we know what previous the previous suggestions are. Your analysis sounds technically correct if you can justify the 1, 2, and 5 values for the covariate. This design will give you a little more power.
doug
On 11/27/2012 01:28 PM, Mahinda Yogarajah wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the reference and explanation of the subtle statistical inferences. It was very useful.
You are right in what i am trying to show (c- controls, p1 to p4 patients with varying levels of endogenous factor) which is that when patients are subdivided into levels of endogenous factor there is correlation with the changes seen in dependent variables compared to controls. So far,
C v whole P gp - differences seen in plausible areas. C v P1 (greatest endo factor) subgp - no differences C v P4 subgp (lowest endo factor) - differences seen in plausible areas.
Given that it is not valid to compare c v p1 and c v p4 (and p1 v p4 shows nothing) is the following valid - perhaps it is similar to what you proposed:
Consider c and p1 to p4 as one group of subjects (theoretically the only difference between subjects being level of endogenous factor) but assign each subject a variable which represents level of endoenous factor (c - 1 p1 - 2 p3 - 4 p4 - 5) - then run glm looking for correlation between endogenous factor and dependent variable.
Is this very different to what you suggested and any less valid ?
Thanks.
M _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer