## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Mangela

LOGBOOK

CONTENT PAGE

Practical One: Binomial & Hypergeometric Distributions 1. 2. 3. 4. Describe the shape of the Binomial distribution when p = 0.2. What is the median value of X and the modal value when p = 0.2. How would you calculate the mean of the distribution? Calculate the mean and compare with the median and the mode and discuss the skewness. 5. Repeat for the cases when p = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and comment 6. Give examples of situations where the Binomial distribution might arise in a Forensic investigation. 7. Describe the shape of the Hypergeometric distribution when n = 20, m = 12 , r = 6 8. What are the median value of X and the modal value. 9. Calculate the mean and compare with the median and the mode and discuss the skewness 10. Give examples of situations where the Hypergeometric distribution might arise in a Forensic investigation.

PAGE NO

3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5

Practical Two: The Poisson Distribution 6 1. What are the relationships between the following (i) The standard deviation and the variance of any distribution? 6 (ii) the mean and variance of the Poisson distribution? 6 (iii) Estimate the mean of the number of murders recorded in a police area per month. 6 2. Describe the shape of the distribution of the number of murders per month. What is the mean? What is the median? Does the number of murders look to be normally distributed? In what ways does the number of murders not satisfy the conditions necessary for a normal distribution. 3. Compare the expected frequencies with those observed. (too good to be true!!!). 4 Now describe the shape of the distribution of murders in December and discuss whether a Poisson distribution fits these data. 5 Now describe the shape of the distribution of sexual offences and discuss whether a Poisson distribution fits these data. 6 Describe, in words, the situations where a random variable with a Poisson distribution might be appropriate. What assumptions are necessary and are they likely to hold true for the number of murders. 7 7 7

6

7

7 Discuss whether the following might have the characteristics of a Poisson distribution… Page.no: 1 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

(i) Number of cot deaths per month per hospital area. (ii) Number of cases of childhood cancers per area per year. Practical Three: Categorical Data and Contingency Tables Data Set One 1. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender is a member of a gang. 2. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon 3. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he has never joined a gang and has no close friends in a gang. 4. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he has never joined a gang. 5. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he is a gang member. 6. Comment on the relationship between gang membership and weapon carrying using the bar chart. 7. Use the Chi Square Output to test association between gang and weapon behaviour. Data Set 2: 1. Estimate the probability that a randomly selected crime involved a white attacker and a white victim 2. Estimate the probability that a randomly selected crime involved a white attacker. 3. Given that both attacker and victim were white, estimate the probability that a reported crime will involve a fatality. 4. If no injury was reported, what is the estimated probability that a crime involves a non-white attacker and a white victim?

7 7

8

9 9

If no injury was reported, what is the estimated probability that a crime involves a white attacker and a white victim? 5. Comment on the relationship between injury level 6. and type of attacker/victim Practical Four: The Normal Distribution Practical 5: Regression Practical 6: Analysis of Variance Practical 7: Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier Bitrial Kedney HIV_azt Practical 8: Survival analysis: Cox proportional hazards regression model Practical 8: continued 11 12 22 38 42 42 46 49 51 53

Page.no: 2 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Practical 1:
**

1.2

Date: 08-02-2007

1.0

1. S hap e of

Count

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00

x

Cases weighted by pdf_.2

binomial distribution when p: 0.2 1.The binomial distribution when p=0.2 shows that there has been increased in count from n = 0 – 5. when n = 5 its highest peak , but it is steady after n = 6 ………15 where count = 1.0. 2. Median value is 8 when p = 0.2 and n = 15 of X and modal value is 5. Median = n+1/2; (15+1)/2; (16/2) = 8th position = 1.0 3. To calculate mean of a distribution , check what is the probability when n, for instance; when n = 0.00 count is 0.05, when n = 1.0 count = 0.3……………n = 15 p = 1.0 It is just the sum of all the count divided by the sum of n. mean= (C1 + C2 + ……C (n-2) + C (n-1). 4. Mean = (0.05 + 0.3 + 0.6+ 0.9+1.0+1.01+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1) = (13.860 / 15) = 0.924 The above bar graph suggests that Mean = 0.924, mode = 1.0 and median = 1.0. it suggests that , p = 0.2, n = 15, are related to each other. P = 0.4

1.2

1.0

Count

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00

x

Cases weighted by pdf_0.4

Page.no: 3 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

5 The bar graph of p = 0.4 indicates that the mean is = (10.351/15) = 0.690, Median = n+1/2; (15+1)/2; (16/2) = 8th position = 1.0 Mode = 1.0 Pdf_0.4 indicates that there sudden rise from x = 1 – 9, from 9 it is becoming steady. It is positively skewed. P= 0.6

0.5

0.4

Count

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00

x

Cases weighted by pdf_0.6

Mean (1.961/15) = 0.131; Median = 0.350; Mode= 0.1 The bar chart for p 0.6 suggests that the binomial distribution is symmetric, 6. 20 Out of 50 is selected of accusation of a murder, what is the probability that the accused are murderer. The probability of murderer is 0.25. DNA sample was obtained to investigate whether, a person smokes or not. N=50 p= 0.75 P= 0.8

1.2

1.0

0.8

Count

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 Page.no: 4.00 1.0057 out of 2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00

x

Cases weighted by PDF_0.8

Yogesh .S. Mangela

**Mean = (4.911/15) = 0.327, Median = 0.005, Model = 14 The pdf-0.8 is positively skewed. 7. Hypergeometric distribution
**

1.2

1.0

Count

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

x

Cases weighted by Pdf_2

The distribution is a skewed. At the point where 4 to 6 it becomes steady. 8. Median = (6+1)/2 = 3.5 = (3rd + 4th position)/2; (0.33+0.35)/2; (0.680/2); = 0.340 and the model is 1.00 9. Mean = (1.333/6) = 0.222 is mean value of X 10. 100 people are arrested for robbery where are only 70 are the real thieves. 25 people were accused and DNA sample were obtained to check that he / she had really taken drugs, 10 were found red handed. 8 Different values of n, m, r etc

0.4

0.3

Count

0.2

0.1

0.0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

x

Cases weighted by Pdf

Page.no: 5 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

1.2

1.0

0.8

Count

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

x

Cases weighted by Pdf_3

PRACTICAL TWO WEEK1

1 Relationship i) The Standard deviation and variance Standarda deviation is the square root of th sample variance, where variance = (σ*σ) ii) The man and variance for Poisson distribution; Variance= var(x*x) - { E (x)} squared. iii) The mean of the number of murders recorded in a police area per month is 1.21. Move number of police areas with X murders (murder1)

Descriptive Statistics N Number X Valid N (listwise) 370 370 Minimum 0 Maximum 6 Mean 1.21 Std. Deviation 1.105 Variance 1.221

2) The mean of the number of murder per month is approximately 677/6= 112.83 and the median is (6 + 1)/2 = 3.5 therefore 3rd + 4th position= (30+10)/2 = 20 median. The number are not normally distributed, the bar graph suggests that the it is skewed, but not normally distributed, as normal distribution is bell shape curved, in order to be normal distribution the data has to divide in both Number X side equally.

125 100

Count

75

50

25

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cases weighted by number of police areas with X murders

Page.no: 6 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela murder2
**

Descriptive Statistics N Number X Valid N (listwise) 370 370 Minimum 0 Maximum 11 Mean 1.22 Std. Deviation 1.905 Variance 3.629

3) The variance of the expected frequency was 3.629 on the other hand observed was 1.221.

4) The distribution is skewed, however seems that the data does not fit in Poisson distribution.

200

150

Count

100

50

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Number X

Cases weighted by number of police area with X murders in December

Descriptive Statistics N Number X Valid N (listwise) 369 369 Minimum 0 Maximum 13 Mean 4.79 Std. Deviation 2.194 Variance 4.814

5) The bar graph suggests that the number of police areas reported sexual offences are symmetric or normally distributed.

**6) Poisson distribution can be used were crime happens every week or every moth for
**

60

Count

40

given time, could be on any days. Assumptions such as; murder happens every months or week, in a particular area, number of murders and times are unexpected therefore your is not right to make this assumptions.

7) Characteristics of a Poisson distribution.

20

i) Number of cot deaths per month per hospital could describe by Poisson distributions. Number X According to Poisson distribution the number of occurrences occurs in some given time. In this case the number of cot death occurs in per months per hospital area.

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Cases weighted by number of police areas with X reported sexual offences

ii) Number of case of childhood cancers per year. Yes this will also contain the characteristics of Poisson distribution.

Page.no: 7 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela Practical 3 Week 2 1. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender is a member of a gang. (1230+1307+688)/7488 = 0.437 2. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon 1438/7488 = 0.192 3. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he has never joined a gang and has no close friends in a gang. 255/2551= 0.099 4. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he has never joined a gang. 516/4263= 0.1210 5. Estimate probability that a randomly selected offender has carried a weapon given he is a gang member. 1438/3225= 0.446

Page.no: 8 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week1-2\Week-2\Prac-3\Gang.sav

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N WeaponBehaviour * GangType 42 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 42 Total Percent 100.0%

GANG

6) Relationship between gang and weapon; The bar graph clearly shows that, those who had not carried weapon are equivalent to those who carried weapon and active gang members. Never joined gang and had no friends and had not carried weapon are similar compare to those who had carried, weapons.

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 1.000 1.000 1.000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value .000(a) .000 .000 42

df 5 5 1

a 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.00. 7) association

between gang and weapon behaviour Ho: There is association between gang and weapon behaviour. H1: No association between gang and weapon behaviour P≥ 0.05 which is 1.00 therefore we force to accept H0 conclude that there is significant association between gang and weapon behaviour.

Dataset TWO

Notes

**[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week1-2\Week-2\Prac-3\Injury.sav
**

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Attacker_Victim * Degree_of_Injury 40 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 40 Total Percent 100.0%

Page.no: 9 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Attacker_Victim * Degree_of_Injury Crosstabulation Degree_of_Injury Fatal Attacker_Victim White/White Count Expected Count % within Degree_of_Injury % of Total White/None White Count Expected Count % within Degree_of_Injury % of Total None White / None White Count Expected Count % within Degree_of_Injury % of Total Non White / White Count Expected Count % within Degree_of_Injury % of Total Total Count Expected Count % within Degree_of_Injury % of Total 1 1.0 25.0% 2.5% 1 1.0 25.0% 2.5% 1 1.0 25.0% 2.5% 1 1.0 25.0% 2.5% 4 4.0 100.0% 10.0% Serious 2 2.0 25.0% 5.0% 2 2.0 25.0% 5.0% 2 2.0 25.0% 5.0% 2 2.0 25.0% 5.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 20.0% Slight 3 3.0 25.0% 7.5% 3 3.0 25.0% 7.5% 3 3.0 25.0% 7.5% 3 3.0 25.0% 7.5% 12 12.0 100.0% 30.0% None 4 4.0 25.0% 10.0% 4 4.0 25.0% 10.0% 4 4.0 25.0% 10.0% 4 4.0 25.0% 10.0% 16 16.0 100.0% 40.0% 10 10.0 25.0% 25.0% 10 10.0 25.0% 25.0% 10 10.0 25.0% 25.0% 10 10.0 25.0% 25.0% 40 40.0 100.0% 100.0% Total

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) 1.000 1.000 1.000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value .000(a) .000 .000 40

df 9 9 1

a 16 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.00.

7. Estimate the probability that a randomly selected crime involved a white attacker and a white victim 6521/11717= 0.557 8. Estimate the probability that a randomly selected crime involved a white attacker. 716/1171= 0.611

Page.no: 10 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela 9. Given that both attacker and victim were white, estimate the probability that a reported crime will involve a fatality. 183/237= 0.7723 4. If no injury was reported, what is the estimated probability that a crime involves a non-white attacker and a white victim? 1801/3616= 0.4981 5. If no injury was reported, what is the estimated probability that a crime involves a white attacker and a white victim? 1422/6521= 0.2781 Bar Chart

Degree_of_Injury Fatal Serious Slight None

4

3

Count

2

1

0 White/White White/None White None White / None Non White / White White

Attacker_Victim 5) The bar graph clearly indicates that the types of injury are similar to each other.

For instance; white attacks white and white attacks none white are equal.

Page.no: 11 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Practical -4 Week 2

Explore

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week1-2\Week-2\Prac-4\measurements.sav TASK 4

Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N shoe 83 Percent 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% N 83 Total Percent 100.0%

Descriptives Statistic 6.596 6.163 7.030 6.516 6.000 3.936 1.9839 2.0 12.0 10.0 3.0 .706 .329 .264 .523 Std. Error .2178

shoe

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) shoe Statistic .209 df 83 Sig. .000 Statistic .929 Shapiro-Wilk df 83 Sig. .000

a Lilliefors Significance Correction

The test of normality indicates that the shoe size is normally distributed with mean 6.596, variance = 3.396 and S.D 1.9839

Page.no: 12 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela Histogram

25

20

Frequency

15

10

5

0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Mean =6.596 Std. Dev. =1.9839 N =83

shoe

shoe Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequency .00 2.00 26.00 32.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 Stem width: Each leaf: Stem & 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 . . . . . . . Leaf 23 44445555555555555555555555 66666666666666666666667777777777 8888888899999999 001111 2

10.0 1 case(s)

Page.no: 13 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Normal Q-Q Plot of shoe

2.5

Expected Normal

0.0

-2.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of shoe

0.50

Dev from Normal

0.25

0.00

-0.25

2

4

6

8

10

12

Observed Value

Page.no: 14 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 shoe

Box and whisker plot shows that shoe size is normally distributed, as there no outliers, and median 6. LQ=2 and UQ=12

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week1-2\Week-2\Prac-4\measurements.sav TASK 5

gender

Case Processing Summary gender N height in cms male female 23 60 Cases Valid Percent 100.0% 100.0% N 0 0 Missing Percent .0% .0% N 23 60 Total Percent 100.0% 100.0%

Descriptives gender Statistic Std. Error

Page.no: 15 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

height in cms male Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis female Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum Range Interquartile Range Skewness Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound 178.696 175.841 181.551 178.565 178.000 43.585 6.6019 170.0 190.0 20.0 11.0 .223 -1.201 165.667 163.780 167.553 165.630 166.000 53.345 7.3037 150.0 180.0 30.0 10.0 .209 -.596 .309 .608 .481 .935 .9429 1.3766

Tests of Normality gender height in cms male female Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) Sig. .200(*) .049 Statistic .927 .969 Shapiro-Wilk df 23 60 Sig. .094 .136

Statistic df .113 23 .114 60 * This is a lower bound of the true significance. a Lilliefors Significance Correction

Page.no: 16 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Histogram
**

for gender= male

5

4

Frequency

3

2

1

0 171.0 174.0 177.0 180.0 183.0 186.0 189.0

Mean =178.696 Std. Dev. =6.6019 N =23

height in cms

Histogram

for gender= female

12

10

8

Frequency

6

4

2

0 150.0 155.0 160.0 165.0 170.0 175.0 180.0

Mean =165.667 Std. Dev. =7.3037 N =60

height in cms

**Stem-and-Leaf Plots
**

height in cms Stem-and-Leaf Plot for gender= male Frequency Stem & Leaf

Page.no: 17 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

8.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 1.00 Stem width: Each leaf: 17 17 18 18 19 . . . . . 00002344 5778 001224 7888 0

10.0 1 case(s)

height in cms Stem-and-Leaf Plot for gender= female Frequency 2.00 9.00 16.00 13.00 11.00 7.00 2.00 Stem width: Each leaf: Stem & 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 . . . . . . . Leaf 02 557778899 0000000001123334 5566667778889 00000001114 5777889 00

10.0 1 case(s)

Normal Q-Q Plots

Normal Q-Q Plot of height in cms

for gender= male

2.0

1.5

Expected Normal

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5 170 175 180 185 190 195

Observed Value

Page.no: 18 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Normal Q-Q Plot of height in cms

for gender= female

2

Expected Normal

0

-2

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plots

Page.no: 19 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of height in cms

for gender= male

0.4

Dev from Normal

0.2

0.0

-0.2

171

174

177

180

183

186

189

Observed Value

**Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of height in cms
**

for gender= female

0.4

0.3

Dev from Normal

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 150 155 160 165 170 175 180

Observed Value

Page.no: 20 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

180.0

height in cms

160.0

male

female

gender

Box and Whisker plot specify that the male are taller than female, Male had median of 175cm height whereas female had approximately 165cm height.

Practical 5 Week 3

BMP WEIGHT HEIGHTAGE

SEX 0 1

PEMAX TLC AGE

FRC

RV

FEV1

HEIGHT WEIGHT

BMP

FEV1

RV

FRC

TLC

PEMAX

Page.no: 21 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

5.50

5.00

4.50

FEV1

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50 160.00 165.00 170.00 175.00 180.00 185.00

HEIGHT

Practical 5 Week3 b)

Regression

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week3\week-3.sav Variables Entered/Removed(b) Variables Variables Entered Removed HEIGHT(a) . a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: FEV1 Model 1

Method Enter

Model Summary(b)

Mode l

1

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square .293

Std. Error of the Estimate .58792

Change Statistics R Square Change .330 F Change 8.858 df1 1 df2 18

.574(a) .330 a Predictors: (Constant), HEIGHT b Dependent Variable: FEV1

Sig. F Change .00

ANOVA(b) Sum of Squares 3.062 6.222 9.283

Model 1

df 1 18 19

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 3.062 .346

F 8.858

Sig. .008(a)

a Predictors: (Constant), HEIGHT b Dependent Variable: FEV1

Coefficients(a)

Page.no: 22 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Mode l
**

1 (Constant) HEIGHT a Dependent Variable: FEV1 Residuals Statistics(a) Minimum 3.0562 -1.980 .133 2.8894 -1.10413 -1.878 -1.945 -1.18437 -2.127 .023 .000 .001 Maximum 4.5027 1.623 .298 4.4847 1.41930 2.414 2.488 1.50721 2.985 3.920 .192 .206 Mean 3.8510 .000 .180 3.8396 .00000 .000 .009 .01139 .019 .950 .043 .050 Std. Deviation .40143 1.000 .049 .41374 .57224 .973 1.014 .62132 1.105 1.115 .057 .059 N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Unstandardized Coefficients B -8.986 .073 Std. Error 4.315 .025 Standardized Coefficients t Beta -2.082 .574 2.976 .052 .008 Sig. Lower Bound -18.051 .022 Upper Bound .080 .125 95% Confidence Interval for B

Predicted Value Std. Predicted Value Standard Error of Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value Residual Std. Residual Stud. Residual Deleted Residual Stud. Deleted Residual Mahal. Distance Cook's Distance Centered Leverage Value a Dependent Variable: FEV1 Charts

Histogram

**Dependent Variable: FEV1
**

5

4

Frequency

3

2

1

0 -2 0 2

Mean =1.01E-15 Std. Dev. =0.973 N =20

Regression Standardized Residual

Page.no: 23 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: FEV1

Expected Cum Prob

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Observed Cum Prob

Scatterplot

**Dependent Variable: FEV1
**

3

Regression Studentized Deleted (Press) Residual

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3 -2 0 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

Practical 5 Week 3 / 2a-b)

Page.no: 24 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Graph

[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week3\cystic.sav

SEX 0 1

PEMAX TLC AGE

FRC

RV

FEV1

BMP WEIGHT HEIGHT AGE

HEIGHT WEIGHT

BMP

FEV1

RV

FRC

TLC

PEMAX

**Regression (Stepwise Data modelling)
**

Notes

**[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week3\cystic.sav
**

Variables Entered/Removed(a) Variables Entered Variables Removed

Model 1

Method Stepwise (Criteria: Probabilityof-F-toenter <= .050, Probabilityof-F-toremove >= .100).

WEIGHT

.

a Dependent Variable: PEMAX Model Summary(b)

Mode l

1

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square .378

Std. Error of the Estimate 26.380

Change Statistics R Square Change .404 F Change 15.559 df1 1 df2 23

.635(a) .404 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Sig. F Change .00

Page.no: 25 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

ANOVA(b) Sum of Squares 10827.159 16005.481

Model 1

df 1 23 24

Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 10827.159 695.890

F 15.559

Sig. .001(a)

26832.640 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX Coefficients(a)

Mode l

1 (Constant) WEIGHT

Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Error 12.702 .301

Standardized Coefficients t Beta .635 5.003 3.944 .000 .001 Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound 37.270 .564 Upper Bound 89.821 1.809

B 63.546 1.187 a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Excluded Variables(b)

Mode l

1 AGE HEIGHT SEX BMP FEV1 RV FRC TLC

Beta In .212(a) .094(a) -.174(a) -.361(a) .211(a) .129(a) -.041(a)

t .549 .224 -1.063 -1.729 1.179 .620 -.194

Sig. .588 .825 .299 .098 .251 .542 .848 .576

Partial Correlation .116 .048 -.221 -.346 .244 .131 -.041 .120

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .179 .152 .964 .548 .799 .614 .619 .825

.102(a) .567 a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Residuals Statistics(a) Minimum 78.85 -1.425 5.288 76.85 -44.305 -1.680 -1.733 -47.198 -1.818 .005 .000 .000 Maximum 151.12 1.978 11.884 147.59 48.408 1.835 1.954 57.007 2.093 3.911 .426 .163 Mean 109.12 .000 7.212 108.62 .000 .000 .009 .505 .011 .960 .046 .040 Std. Deviation 21.240 1.000 1.952 20.773 25.824 .979 1.021 28.144 1.053 1.090 .085 .045 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Predicted Value Std. Predicted Value Standard Error of Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value Residual Std. Residual Stud. Residual Deleted Residual Stud. Deleted Residual Mahal. Distance Cook's Distance Centered Leverage Value a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Page.no: 26 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Charts

Histogram

**Dependent Variable: PEMAX
**

6

5

Frequency

4

3

2

1

0 -2 0 2

Mean =2.78E-17 Std. Dev. =0.979 N =25

Regression Standardized Residual

**Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
**

Expected Cum Prob

Dependent Variable: PEMAX

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Observed Cum Prob

Scatterplot

Regression Studentized Deleted (Press) Residual

Dependent Variable: PEMAX

2

1

0

-1

-2 -2 0 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

**Regression (Backward Data Modelling)
**

Page.no: 27 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week3\cystic.sav

Variables Entered/Removed(b) Variables Entered WEIGHT, SEX, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE(a) Variables Removed

Model 1

Method

.

Enter

2 Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100). Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100). Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100). Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100). Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100). Backward (criterion: Probability of F-toremove >= .100).

.

SEX

3

.

TLC

4

.

FRC

5

.

AGE

6

.

HEIGHT

7

.

RV

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: PEMAX Model Summary(h)

Page.no: 28 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Mode l
**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Adjusted R Square .420 .454 .480 .502 .522 .537 Std. Error of the Estimate 25.471 24.710 24.114 23.592 23.128 22.754 Change Statistics R Square Change .637 -.001 -.004 -.005 -.005 -.007 F Change 2.929 .058 .190 .229 .261 .357 2.286 df1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 df2 15 15 16 17 18 19 20

R .798(a) .797(b) .795(c) .792(d) .788(e) .784(f)

R Square .637 .636 .632 .627 .621 .614

Sig. F Change .03 .81

.66

.63

.61

.55

.755(g) .570 .509 23.440 -.044 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, SEX, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE b Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE c Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE d Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, AGE e Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT f Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1 g Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, FEV1 h Dependent Variable: PEMAX ANOVA(h) Sum of Squares 17101.390 9731.250 26832.640 17063.488 9769.152 26832.640 16947.546 9885.094 26832.640 16814.390 10018.250 26832.640 16669.053 10163.587 26832.640 16478.040 10354.600 26832.640 15294.452 11538.188

.14

Model 1

df 9 15 24 8 16 24 7 17 24 6 18 24 5 19 24 4 20 24 3 21

Regression Residual Total Regression Residual Total

Mean Square 1900.154 648.750 2132.936 610.572 2421.078 581.476 2802.398 556.569 3333.811 534.926 4119.510 517.730 5098.151 549.438

F 2.929

Sig. .032(a)

2

3.493

.016(b)

3

Regression Residual Total

4.164

.008(c)

4

Regression Residual Total

5.035

.003(d)

5

Regression Residual Total

6.232

.001(e)

6

Regression Residual Total

7.957

.001(f)

7

Regression Residual Total

9.279

.000(g)

26832.640 24 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, SEX, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE b Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE c Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE d Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, AGE e Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT f Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1 g Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, FEV1 h Dependent Variable: PEMAX Coefficients(a)

Page.no: 29 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Mode l
**

1 (Constant) AGE HEIGHT SEX BMP FEV1 RV FRC TLC WEIGHT 2 (Constant) AGE HEIGHT BMP FEV1 RV FRC TLC WEIGHT 3 (Constant) AGE HEIGHT BMP FEV1 RV FRC WEIGHT 4 (Constant) AGE HEIGHT BMP FEV1 RV 5 WEIGHT (Constant) HEIGHT BMP FEV1 RV WEIGHT 6 (Constant) BMP FEV1 RV WEIGHT 7 (Constant) BMP Unstandardized Coefficients B 176.058 -2.542 -.446 -3.737 -1.745 1.081 .197 -.308 .189 2.993 153.039 -2.115 -.395 -1.742 1.265 .178 -.248 .208 2.835 198.294 -2.663 -.490 -1.963 1.248 .160 -.176 3.156 166.905 -1.819 -.410 -1.949 1.412 .096 2.874 137.096 -.449 -1.641 1.472 .110 2.339 63.947 -1.377 1.548 .126 1.749 126.334 Std. Error 225.891 4.802 .903 15.460 1.155 1.081 .196 .492 .500 2.008 198.715 4.331 .852 1.121 .743 .174 .412 .478 1.842 165.331 4.044 .804 .975 .724 .165 .369 1.648 148.476 3.560 .769 .954 .624 .095 1.506 133.856 .751 .725 .601 .088 1.060 53.277 .565 .578 .083 .381 34.720 .579 .514 .364 -.526 .371 .822 -.403 -.315 -.705 .418 .411 -.231 1.689 -.275 -.264 -.700 .473 .246 1.539 -.288 -.589 .493 .283 1.252 -.494 .518 .323 .936 -.320 -.254 -.625 .424 .458 -.325 .106 1.517 Standardized Coefficients t Beta -.385 -.287 -.057 -.627 .362 .507 -.403 .096 1.602 .779 -.529 -.494 -.242 -1.510 1.000 1.004 -.626 .377 1.490 .770 -.488 -.464 -1.554 1.703 1.021 -.602 .436 1.539 1.199 -.659 -.609 -2.012 1.724 .967 -.479 1.915 1.124 -.511 -.533 -2.043 2.263 1.010 1.908 1.024 -.598 -2.265 2.450 1.245 2.206 1.200 -2.436 2.679 1.512 4.595 3.639 -2.530 2.155 4.216 .448 .604 .628 .812 .152 .333 .331 .540 .711 .157 .452 .632 .649 .140 .108 .323 .555 .669 .143 .247 .519 .550 .060 .103 .347 .638 .072 .276 .616 .600 .056 .036 .326 .072 .319 .557 .035 .024 .228 .040 .244 .024 .014 .146 .000 .002 .019 .043 .000 Sig. Lower Bound -305.417 -12.777 -2.372 -36.689 -4.207 -1.223 -.221 -1.358 -.877 -1.287 -268.218 -11.295 -2.200 -4.117 -.310 -.192 -1.122 -.805 -1.070 -150.524 -11.195 -2.185 -4.020 -.280 -.189 -.954 -.321 -145.032 -9.299 -2.026 -3.953 .101 -.103 -.290 -143.068 -2.020 -3.158 .214 -.075 .120 -47.187 -2.557 .343 -.048 .955 54.130 -2.670 .039 .779 Upper Bound 657.534 7.693 1.479 29.215 .717 3.385 .615 .741 1.254 7.273 574.295 7.066 1.411 .634 2.840 .547 .626 1.222 6.740 547.112 5.869 1.206 .095 2.775 .508 .602 6.632 478.842 5.661 1.206 .055 2.723 .294 6.039 417.259 1.122 -.124 2.729 .295 4.557 175.080 -.198 2.753 .299 2.543 198.537 -.261 2.178 2.294 95% Confidence Interval for B

-1.465 FEV1 1.109 WEIGHT 1.536 a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Excluded Variables(g)

Page.no: 30 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Mode l
**

2 3 4 5 SEX SEX TLC SEX TLC FRC SEX TLC FRC AGE SEX TLC FRC AGE HEIGHT 7 SEX TLC FRC AGE HEIGHT RV Partial Correlation -.062 -.079 .108 .002 .052 -.115 .008 .100 -.051 -.120 .015 .138 -.018 -.131 -.136 -.015 .239 .259 -.225 -.217 Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .441 .453 .386 .676 .460 .093 .677 .576 .115 .071 .679 .644 .121 .072 .086 .685 .743 .410 .081 .094

Beta In -.057(a) -.071(b) .106(b) .002(c) .047(c) -.231(c) .006(d) .081(d) -.092(d) -.275(d) .011(e) .107(e) -.032(e) -.303(e) -.288(e) -.012(f) .182(f) .266(f) -.517(f) -.466(f)

t -.242 -.316 .436 .009 .217 -.479 .033 .428 -.216 -.511 .066 .607 -.079 -.577 -.598 -.068 1.100 1.201 -1.033 -.996

Sig. .812 .756 .669 .993 .831 .638 .974 .674 .831 .616 .948 .551 .938 .571 .557 .947 .284 .244 .314 .331

6

.323(f) 1.512 .146 .320 .422 a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, TLC, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, FRC, AGE c Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT, AGE d Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1, HEIGHT e Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, RV, FEV1 f Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT, BMP, FEV1 g Dependent Variable: PEMAX Residuals Statistics(a) Minimum 71.97 -1.472 6.062 69.56 -42.388 -1.808 -1.962 -49.885 -2.118 .645 .001 .027 Maximum 160.77 2.046 15.174 159.23 40.373 1.722 1.937 51.069 2.086 9.098 .249 .379 Mean 109.12 .000 9.160 108.48 .000 .000 .012 .637 .003 2.880 .045 .120 Std. Deviation 25.244 1.000 2.040 25.272 21.926 .935 1.014 25.843 1.052 1.824 .059 .076 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Predicted Value Std. Predicted Value Standard Error of Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value Residual Std. Residual Stud. Residual Deleted Residual Stud. Deleted Residual Mahal. Distance Cook's Distance Centered Leverage Value a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Charts

Page.no: 31 out of 57

Histogram

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Dependent Variable: PEMAX

6

Frequency

4

2

0 -2 0 2

Mean =-5.55E-16 Std. Dev. =0.935 N =25

Regression Standardized Residual

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: PEMAX

1.0

Expected Cum Prob

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Observed Cum Prob

Page.no: 32 out of 57

Scatterplot Yogesh .S. Mangela Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Regression Studentized Deleted (Press) Residual

2.5

0.0

-2.5

-1

0

1

2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

**Regression (Forward Data Modelling)
**

Notes

**[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week3\cystic.sav
**

Variables Entered/Removed(a) Variables Entered Variables Removed

Model 1

Method Forward (Criterion: Probabilityof-F-toenter <= .050)

WEIGHT

.

a Dependent Variable: PEMAX Model Summary(b)

Mode l

1

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square .378

Std. Error of the Estimate 26.380

Change Statistics R Square Change .404 F Change 15.559 df1 1 df2 23

.635(a) .404 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Sig. F Change .00

ANOVA(b)

Page.no: 33 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Model 1 Sum of Squares 10827.159 16005.481 df 1 23 24 Mean Square 10827.159 695.890 F 15.559 Sig. .001(a)

Regression Residual Total

26832.640 a Predictors: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Coefficients(a)

Mode l

Unstandardized Coefficients Std. Error 12.702 .301

Standardized Coefficients t Beta .635 5.003 3.944 .000 .001 Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound 37.270 .564 Upper Bound 89.821 1.809

B 1 (Constant) 63.546 WEIGHT 1.187 a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Excluded Variables(b)

Mode l

1 AGE HEIGHT SEX BMP FEV1 RV FRC TLC

Beta In .212(a) .094(a) -.174(a) -.361(a) .211(a) .129(a) -.041(a)

t .549 .224 -1.063 -1.729 1.179 .620 -.194

Sig. .588 .825 .299 .098 .251 .542 .848 .576

Partial Correlation .116 .048 -.221 -.346 .244 .131 -.041 .120

Collinearity Statistics Tolerance .179 .152 .964 .548 .799 .614 .619 .825

.102(a) .567 a Predictors in the Model: (Constant), WEIGHT b Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Residuals Statistics(a) Minimum 78.85 -1.425 5.288 76.85 -44.305 -1.680 -1.733 -47.198 -1.818 .005 .000 .000 Maximum 151.12 1.978 11.884 147.59 48.408 1.835 1.954 57.007 2.093 3.911 .426 .163 Mean 109.12 .000 7.212 108.62 .000 .000 .009 .505 .011 .960 .046 .040 Std. Deviation 21.240 1.000 1.952 20.773 25.824 .979 1.021 28.144 1.053 1.090 .085 .045 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Predicted Value Std. Predicted Value Standard Error of Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value Residual Std. Residual Stud. Residual Deleted Residual Stud. Deleted Residual Mahal. Distance Cook's Distance Centered Leverage Value a Dependent Variable: PEMAX

Charts

Page.no: 34 out of 57

**Histogram Yogesh .S. Mangela Dependent Variable: PEMAX
**

6

5

Frequency

4

3

2

1

0 -2 0 2

Mean =2.78E-17 Std. Dev. =0.979 N =25

Regression Standardized Residual

Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

Dependent Variable: PEMAX

1.0

Expected Cum Prob

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Observed Cum Prob

Page.no: 35 out of 57

**Scatterplot Yogesh .S. Mangela Dependent Variable: PEMAX
**

Regression Studentized Deleted (Press) Residual

2

1

0

-1

-2 -2 0 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value Practical 6 Week 4

Explore

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav PRC_6_bi)

**1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical
**

Case Processing Summary 1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical N cortisol control major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical 31 14 8 14 4 Cases Valid Missing Total

Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N 0 0 0 0 0

Percent .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

N 31 14 8 14 4

Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Page.no: 36 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

cortisol

25.0

20.0

15.0

cortisol

67 10.0 31

53 5.0

66

0.0 control major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical

1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical

Graph

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav PRC_6_Q1_bii

25.0

20.0

cortisol

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 2 4

group

Graph

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav

PRC_6_Q1_biii)

Page.no: 37 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

20.0

15.0

95% CI cortisol

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0 control major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical

1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical

Oneway

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav

Test of Homogeneity of Variances cortisol Levene Statistic 16.121 df1 4 df2 66 Sig. .000

Prac-6 ci)

ANOVA cortisol Sum of Squares 1405.594 1074.295 2479.889 df 4 66 70 Mean Square 351.399 16.277 F 21.588 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav

PRC_6_Dii)

Case Processing Summary 1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical N LCORTISOL control major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical 31 14 8 14 4 Cases Valid Missing Total

Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N 0 0 0 0 0

Percent .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%

N 31 14 8 14 4

Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Page.no: 38 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

LCORTISOL

3.00 67

LCORTISOL

31 2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00 control major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical

1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical

Graph

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav

PRC_6_Dii)

95% CI LCORTISOL

2.00

0.00

control

major depression

biopolar depression

schizophrenia

atypical

1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical

3.00

LCORTISOL

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

Page.no: 39 out of 57

2

4

group

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Oneway

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week4\cortisol.sav

PRC-6_Diii

Test of Homogeneity of Variances LCORTISOL Levene Statistic 2.507 df1 4 df2 66 Sig. .050

ANOVA LCORTISOL Sum of Squares 32.019 33.014 65.032 df 4 66 70 Mean Square 8.005 .500 F 16.003 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

**Post Hoc Tests
**

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: LCORTISOL Dunnett t (2-sided)

(I) 1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical major depression biopolar depression schizophrenia atypical

**(J) 1=control, 2=major depression, 3=bipolar depression, 4=schizophrenia, 5=atypical
**

control control control control

95% Confidence Interval

Mean Difference (IJ) 1.57109(*) -.14395 -.26084 -.19067

Std. Error .22774 .28047 .22774 .37575

Sig. .000 .973 .671 .974 Lower Bound .9911 -.8582 -.8408 -1.1476 Upper Bound 2.1511 .5703 .3192 .7663

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a Dunnett t-tests treat one group as a control, and compare all other groups against it.

Practical 7: Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier

Kaplan-Meier

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week5\btrial\btrial.sav

Case Processing Summary

PRC-7 1c)

Page.no: 40 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela ihc_typ e
**

negative positive Overall Censored Total N 36 9 45 N of Events N 16 8 24 20 1 21 Percent 55.6% 11.1% 46.7%

Survival Table

ihc_typ e

negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cumulative Proportion Surviving at the Time Time 19.000 25.000 30.000 34.000 37.000 46.000 47.000 51.000 56.000 57.000 61.000 66.000 67.000 74.000 78.000 86.000 122.000 123.000 130.000 130.000 133.000 134.000 136.000 141.000 143.000 148.000 151.000 152.000 153.000 154.000 156.000 162.000 164.000 165.000 182.000 189.000 Status dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive alive Estimate .972 .944 .917 .889 .861 .833 .806 .778 .750 .722 .694 .667 .639 .611 .583 .556 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Std. Error .027 .038 .046 .052 .058 .062 .066 .069 .072 .075 .077 .079 .080 .081 .082 .083 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N of Cumulative Events 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

N of Remaining Cases 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Page.no: 41 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22.000 23.000 38.000 42.000 73.000 77.000 89.000 115.000 144.000 dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead alive .889 .778 .667 .556 .444 .333 .222 .111 . .105 .139 .157 .166 .166 .157 .139 .105 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Means and Medians for Survival Time

ihc_typ e

Estimate negative positive 128.167 69.222 Std. Error 11.530 13.257

Mean(a) 95% Confidence Interval Estimate Lower Bound 105.567 43.239 Upper Bound 150.766 95.206 . 73.000 89.000 Std. Error

Median 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound . 46.212 . . .000 . Upper Bound . 163.576 .

Overall 117.378 10.328 97.134 137.622 a Estimation is limited to the largest survival time if it is censored.

Mean for the survive time distribution for Negative IHC-TYPE the population mean survival time is estimated to be 128 deaths with 95% confidence interval (105.567, 150.766) deaths. For positive IHC-TYPE the population mean survival time is estimated to be 69.222 deaths with 95% confidence interval (43.239, 95.206) deaths Mean for the survival time distribution For negative HIC-TYPE the population median survival time m is estimated to be 0.00 deaths with 95% confidence interval (not included) deaths. For positive HIC-TYPE the population median survival time M is estimated to be 73.00 with 95% confidence interval (0.00, 163.576)

Percentiles ihc_type negative positive Overall 25.0% Estimate . 89.000 . Std. Error . 23.697 . 50.0% Estimate . 73.000 89.000 Std. Error . 46.212 . 75.0% Estimate 56.000 38.000 51.000 Std. Error 9.093 11.314 8.899

Lower quartiles for the survival time distribution For negative HIC-TYPE the population lower quartile survival time Q1 is estimated to be 56.00, Q2 is not estimated for negative HIC-TYPE deaths and Q3. For positive HIC-TYPE the population lower quartile survival time Q1 is estimated to be 38.00 deaths, Q2 is estimated to be 73.00 deaths and Q3 is estimated to be 89.00 deaths.

Overall Comparisons

Page.no: 42 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) Breslow (Generalized Wilcoxon) Tarone-Ware Chi-Square 5.494 4.351 df 1 1 Sig. .019 .037

4.879 1 .027 Test of equality of survival distributions for the different levels of ihc_type.

H0: Survival time distribution of negative HIC-TYPE and positive HIC-TYPE are same. H1: Survival time distribution of negative HIC-TYPE and positive HIC-TYPE are different. Above table since p≤0.05 suggests that negative HIC-TYPE and positive HIC-TYPE are defferent.

Survival Functions

ihc_type negative positive negative-censored positive-censored

1.0

0.8

Cum Survival

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 50 100 150 200

time

The survival function plot suggests that the negative HIC-TYPE has a higher cumulative survival probability throughout, with 189 deaths. the cumulative survival proportion for the two HIC-TYPE are different, For instance positive HIC-TYPE 145 have 02% chance of survive. on the other hand , negative HIC-TYPE 145 its around 55% chance of survive.

Page.no: 43 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Hazard Function

ihc_type negative positive negative-censored positive-censored

2.5

2.0

Cum Hazard

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 0 50 100 150 200

time

Kaplan-Meier

[DataSet2] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week5\kidney\kidney.sav Prac 7 (2)

Case Processing Summary

CATHATER

SURGICALLY PERCUTANEOUSLY Overall

Total N 43 76 119

N of Events N 15 11 26

Censored 28 65 93 Percent 65.1% 85.5% 78.2%

**The censor Status is INFECTED the status event is 1=YES, status event occurs as late as possible
**

Survival Table Cumulative Proportion Surviving at the Time Time Status Estimate Std. Error N of Cumulative Events N of Remaining Cases

CATHATER

Page.no: 44 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

SURGICALLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1.500 2.500 2.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 5.500 5.500 6.500 6.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 9.500 9.500 10.500 10.500 11.500 11.500 12.500 12.500 13.500 14.500 14.500 15.500 16.500 18.500 21.500 21.500 22.500 22.500 23.500 25.500 26.500 27.500 NO 0 NO 0 NO NO NO 0 0 0 0 NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO 0 NO 0 NO NO 0 NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO NO 0 NO 0 0 0 NO 0 0 .977 . . .952 . . . . .899 . .872 . . . . . . . . .802 . .766 . .728 . .687 . . . . . . .625 .562 .500 . . . . .375 . .187 . .023 . . .033 . . . . .048 . .054 . . . . . . . . .068 . .074 . .080 . .085 . . . . . . .098 .106 .111 . . . . .137 . .149 . 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Page.no: 45 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

PERCUTANEOUSLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 3.500 4.500 4.500 4.500 5.500 5.500 5.500 5.500 5.500 6.500 6.500 7.500 7.500 7.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 9.500 9.500 10.500 10.500 10.500 11.500 11.500 12.500 12.500 12.500 12.500 14.500 14.500 NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO NO NO NO NO NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO NO 0 0 0 0 0 NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . .921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .888 . . . . . .870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .038 . . . . . .041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .047 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

Page.no: 46 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Means and Medians for Survival Time

CATHATER

Estimate SURGICALLY PERCUTANEOUSLY 18.527 23.649 Std. Error 1.659 1.386

Mean(a) 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound 15.275 20.933 Upper Bound 21.778 26.366 23.391 Estimate 18.500 . 26.500 Std. Error 4.149 . .

Median Lower Bound 10.367 . .

95% Confidence In

Uppe

Overall 21.028 1.206 18.664 a Estimation is limited to the largest survival time if it is censored.

Means of the survival time distribution For SURGICALLY Catheter type the population mean survival; time is estimated to be 18.527 with 95% confidence interval (15.275, 21.778). For PERCUTANEOUSLY catheter type the population mean survival time is estimated to be 23.649 with 95% confidence interval (20.933, 26.366) Median for the survival time distribution For SURGICALLY Catheter type the population median survival; time is estimated to be 18.500 with 95% confidence interval (10.367, 26.633). For PERCUTANEOUSLY catheter type the population median survival time is estimated to be 23.649 with 95% confidence interval (not included).

Percentiles CATHATER SURGICALLY PERCUTANEOUSLY Overall 25.0% Estimate 26.500 . . Std. Error 2.386 . . 50.0% Estimate 18.500 . 26.500 Std. Error 4.149 . . 75.0% Estimate 10.500 . 15.500 Std. Error 2.080 . 3.301

Lower quartiles for the survival time distribution For SURGICALLY Catheter type the Q1 survival time is estimated to be 10.500. Q2 is 18.50 and Q3 is 26.500 For PERCUTANEOUSLY type the Q1 survival time is not estimated, Q2 and Q3 respectivaly.

Overall Comparisons Chi-Square 2.530 .002 df 1 1 Sig. .112 .964

Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) Breslow (Generalized Wilcoxon) Tarone-Ware

.403 1 .526 Test of equality of survival distributions for the different levels of CATHATER.

H0: both the Surgically and Percutaneously are same survival distribution. H1: both the Surgically and Percutaneously are different survival distribution. P≥0.05 hence we accept H0 and conclude that there is no evidence that there are any difference survival distribution in Surgically and Percutaneously CATHATER type.

Page.no: 47 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Survival Functions

CATHATER

PERCUTANEOUSLY SURGICALLY PERCUTANEOUSLYcensored SURGICALLYcensored

1.0

0.8

Cum Survival

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

TIME

From the survival function graph it suggests that the PERCUTANEUSALY cathater has a higher cumulative survival probability than the SURGICALLY.

Hazard Function

CATHATER

PERCUTANEOUSLY SURGICALLY PERCUTANEOUSLYcensored SURGICALLYcensored

2.0

1.5

Cum Hazard

1.0

0.5

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

TIME

Kaplan-Meier

[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week5\HIV_azt\HIV_azt.sav

Case Processing Summary cd4 No Total N 7 N of Events N 3 4 Censored Percent 57.1%

7.3.A)

Page.no: 48 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Yes Overall 27 34 14 17 13 17 48.1% 50.0%

**Sensor status is CD4 (0 = no, 1 = yes) and event status is Drug (1 = AZT+zalcitabine, 1 = AZT+zalcitabine+saquinavir )
**

Survival Table Cumulative Proportion Surviving at the Time Estimate 1 2 3 51.000 4 56.000 5 94.000 6 7 180.000 1 2 3 4 12.000 5 22.000 6 7 8 9 10 48.000 11 12 13 14 80.000 49.000 75.000 80.000 32.000 35.000 39.000 45.000 6.000 11.000 12.000 180.000 4.000 38.000 AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir .857 .714 . Std. Error .132 .171 . 1 2 2 6 5 4

.

.

2

3

. .357 . .958 .917 .875 . . .829 .783 .737 .691 . .641 .592 .543 .

. .267 . .041 .056 .068 . . .078 .086 .093 .098 . .102 .106 .108 .

2 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10

2 1 0 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

Page.no: 49 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

15 16 17 85.000 18 19 90.000 20 21 160.000 22 171.000 23 180.000 24 238.000 102.000 87.000 84.000 85.000 AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir AZT+zalcit abine+saq uinavir .488 .434 . .372 . .298 . .110 .110 . .111 . .111 . 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

.

.

14

2

. .

. .

14 14

1 0

Means and Medians for Survival Time

cd4

Estimate No Yes Overall 134.571 111.253 Std. Error 33.515 19.893

Mean(a) 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound 68.881 72.262 Upper Bound 200.261 150.244 Estimate 180.000 84.000 85.000 Std. Error 105.992 6.958 5.002

Median 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .000 70.363 75.196 Upper Bound 387.744 97.637 94.804

118.394 17.854 83.399 153.388 a Estimation is limited to the largest survival time if it is censored. Mean of the survival time distribution

For CD4 no the population mean survival time is estimated to be 134.571 with 95% confidence interval (68.881, 200.261) For CD4 yes the population mean survival time estimated to be 111.253 with 95% confidence interval ( 72.262, 150.244) Median of the survival time distribution For CD4 No the population median survival time is estimated to be 180.00 with 95% confidence interval (0.00, 387.744) Fro CD4 Yes the population median survival time is estimated to be 84.00 with 95% confidence interval (70.363, 97.637) Percentiles

cd4

No Yes Overall

25.0% Estimate . . . Std. Error . . .

50.0% Estimate 180.000 84.000 85.000 Std. Error 105.992 6.958 5.002

75.0% Estimate 38.000 39.000 39.000 Std. Error 60.103 8.721 7.773

Lower quartiles for the survival time distribution

For CD4 NO type the Q1 survival time is estimated to be 38.00. Q2 is 105.00 and Q3 is no estimated. For CD4 NO type the Q1 survival time is estimated to be 39.00. Q2 is 6.958 and Q3 is no estimated.

Overall Comparisons

Page.no: 50 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Chi-Square .520 .246 df 1 1 Sig. .471 .620

Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) Breslow (Generalized Wilcoxon)

Tarone-Ware .433 1 .510 Test of equality of survival distributions for the different levels of cd4.

H0: H1:

Both CD4 Yes and No have the same survival distribution Both CD4 Yes and No have the different survival distribution

P≥ 0.05 we force to accept Ho: conclude that the survival distribution of CD4 yes and No are same.

Survival Functions

cd4 No Yes No-censored Yes-censored

1.0

0.8

Cum Survival

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250

time

Above Survival function graph indicates that the CD4 no have the best survival function distribution.

Hazard Function

cd4 No Yes No-censored Yes-censored

1.2

Cum Hazard

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250

time

Cox Regression

Notes

Page.no: 51 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

[DataSet3] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week6\Kidtran\kidtran.sav PRAC_8_i)

Case Processing Summary N Cases available in analysis Cases dropped Event(a) Censored Total Cases with missing values Cases with negative time Censored cases before the earliest event in a stratum Total Total a Dependent Variable: Measures the Time to death Categorical Variable Codings(b,c) Frequency 524 339 712 151 (1) 1 0 1 0 140 721 861 0 0 2 2 863 Percent 16.2% 83.5% 99.8% .0% .0% .2% .2% 100.0%

sex(a) race(a )

1=Male 2=Female 1=White 2=Black

a Indicator Parameter Coding b Category variable: sex c Category variable: race

**Block 0: Beginning Block
**

Variables not in the Equation(a) Score .310 1.111 df 1 1 Sig. .578 .292

sex race age

53.433 1 .000 a Residual Chi Square = 53.688 with 3 df Sig. = .000

Best fitted model h(y)=h0(y) * exp{.138*Size} h(y)=h0(y) * exp{.138*Size+1} = 1.148 (3 d.p) = 14.8%

**Block 1: Method = Forward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio)
**

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients(b,c)

Page.no: 52 out of 57

**Yogesh .S. Mangela Step
**

1(a) -2 Log Likelihood Overall (score) Change From Previous Step 1 Sig. .000

Change From Previou Chi-square 56.732 df 1

Chi-square df Sig. Chi-square df 1701.638 53.433 1 .000 56.732 a Variable(s) Entered at Step Number 1: age b Beginning Block Number 0, initial Log Likelihood function: -2 Log likelihood: 1758.370 c Beginning Block Number 1. Method = Forward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio)

**Following Explanatory Variable was used by Forward Stepwise selection is Age.
**

Variables in the Equation B Step 1 age .051 SE .007 Wald 51.203 df 1 Sig. .000 Exp(B) 1.052

Best fitted model h(y)=h0(y) * exp{0.051*AGE}

**As Age function increases it more likely that you death percentage is increase.
**

Best fitted model h(y)=h0(y) * exp{0.051*AGE+1} = 1.0523 = 5.23%

Variables not in the Equation(a) Score df Sig. .025 1 .875 .305 1 .581 a Residual Chi Square = .328 with 2 df Sig. = .849 Step 1 sex race Model if Term Removed Loss Chisquare 56.732

Term Removed Step 1 age

df 1

Sig. .000

Covariate Means Mean .607 .825 42.835

sex race age

Hazard Function at mean of covariates

0.35

0.30

0.25

Cum Hazard

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

Page.no: 53 out of 57

0.00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Measures the Time to death

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Survival Function at mean of covariates

1.00

0.95

Cum Survival

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Cox Regression

Measures the Time to death

**[DataSet1] H:\2nd Year\MA2012N\Week6\prostatic.sav
**

Case Processing Summary N Cases available in analysis Cases dropped Event(a) Censored Total Cases with missing values Cases with negative time Censored cases before the earliest event in a stratum Total Total a Dependent Variable: Survival time Categorical Variable Codings(b) Frequency 18 20 (1) 1 0 6 30 36 0 0 2 2 38 Percent 15.8% 78.9% 94.7% .0% .0% 5.3% 5.3% 100.0%

TREATMENT( a)

1=placebo 2=diethylstilbestrol

Page.no: 54 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

a Indicator Parameter Coding b Category variable: TREATMENT (Treatment)

**Block 0: Beginning Block
**

Variables not in the Equation(a) Score 4.421 .082 .151 9.644 df 1 1 1 1 Sig. .035 .774 .697 .002

TREATMENT AGE SERUM SIZE GLEASON

7.262 1 .007 a Residual Chi Square = 14.992 with 5 df Sig. = .010

**Block 1: Method = Forward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio)
**

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients(c,d)

Step

1(a) 2(b) a b c d

-2 Log Likelihood

Overall (score)

Change From Previous Step 1 1 Sig. .007 .019

Change From Previou Chi-square 7.307 12.816 df 1 2

Chi-square df Sig. Chi-square df 29.042 9.644 1 .002 7.307 23.533 13.752 2 .001 5.508 Variable(s) Entered at Step Number 1: SIZE Variable(s) Entered at Step Number 2: GLEASON Beginning Block Number 0, initial Log Likelihood function: -2 Log likelihood: 36.349 Beginning Block Number 1. Method = Forward Stepwise (Likelihood Ratio) Variables in the Equation B SE .037 .045 .362 Wald 7.360 5.250 4.620 df 1 1 1 Sig. .007 .022 .032

Step 1 Step 2

SIZE SIZE GLEASON

.101 .104 .778

Exp(B) 1.107 1.109 2.177

Size and Gleason were selected as best fitted model.

Best fitted model h(y)=h0(y) * exp{0.101*size+0.778*Gleason}

**As Age function increases it more likely that you death percentage is increase.
**

Best fitted model for Size h(y)=h0(y) * exp{0.101*size+1} = 1.1062= 11.062%

As the tumour size increase the percentages death is increased. Gleason

h(y)=h0(y) * exp{0.778*Gleason+1} = 2.1771 = 21.77%

Variables not in the Equation(a,b) Score 1.249 .177 .023 5.714 df 1 1 1 1 Sig. .264 .674 .881 .017

Step 1

TREATMENT AGE SERUM GLEASON

Page.no: 55 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Step 2 TREATMENT AGE SERUM .926 .255 1 1 .336 .613 .875

.025 1 a Residual Chi Square = 7.714 with 4 df Sig. = .103 b Residual Chi Square = 1.435 with 3 df Sig. = .697 Model if Term Removed Loss Chisquare 7.307 5.594 5.508

Term Removed Step 1 SIZE Step 2 SIZE GLEASON

df 1 1 1

Sig. .007 .018 .019

**Covariate Means Mean .472 68.278 14.000 10.750 9.139
**

Survival Function at mean of covariates

TREATMENT AGE SERUM SIZE GLEASON

1.0

Cum Survival

0.8

0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Survival time

Page.no: 56 out of 57

Yogesh .S. Mangela

Hazard Function at mean of covariates

0.4

Cum Hazard

0.2

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Survival time

Page.no: 57 out of 57

- Final NHS
- HW1_N
- Linear Regression Gnuplot
- Ch 10 3rd NYU (1)
- Testing a Model of Undergraduate Competence in Employability Skil
- microeconometría bancaria
- Social Research Methods
- Presentation (1)
- zaini_uu3.docx
- Predicting the Popularity of Online Content
- Mat 2377 Final Spring 2011
- Dissertation Report 23
- Bangladeshi BANKS CMPARISON
- BOY
- Factor Affecting the Financial Performance of Takaful Companies in Pakista
- Review 2013 Regression
- S0573-8555%282004%290000264009
- Manova x2 x19 x20
- Comparison of an Enzymatic Alcoholdehydrogenase
- Problem 4, A Chemist Wishes
- Abnormal Stock Returns Associated With Media Disclosures of Subject to Qualified Audit Opinions
- English Version
- 03 Forecasting
- Ch04_SSM_DJB.pdf
- Session 9
- Univariate Analysis of Variance.docx
- 03 Rec 7
- Cost Estimation Predictive Modeling Regression Verses NN
- 2014 lab 4 5
- Empirical Correlation of SPT Blow Counts Versus Shear

Read Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading