Oh, sorry, Greve. I misunderstood your suggestion. Now I get the same resulte in both mri_glmfit and matlab. Thanks a lot! But there is still a question about how it happened. Why I have to do so to get the correct result? There is nothing relevant between the number scale of one variable and the beta values of other variables theoretically. Is it any relevance to the data size of data structure in mri_glmfit?
Best Regards, Lijie Huang On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Douglas N Greve <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > sorry, I mean to do it for both the FSGD file and the matlab script. I just > tried it with your data and it works. > > doug > > soft.join Huang wrote: > >> Hi, doug. >> Thanks for your suggestion, but it does not seem to work. >> After having divided the ICV by 1e6, I reculated the betas, and got the >> similar results as before in Matlab, just the beta4 -- correspondent to ICV >> -- multiplied a 10^6. >> And then I computed the rank of matrix X that the value is 4, indicating >> that each 2 variables in design matrix do not highly correlated. >> Also I have finished an regress analysis including one class variable and >> one continuous variable using mri_glmfit, got the same result in Matlab. >> A wired situation... >> Is it any additional constrains in mri_glmfit when doing regression >> analysis? >> Lijie Huang >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Douglas N Greve < >> gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote: >> >> I think the problem may be that your data are "badly scaled" >> meaning that one column is much greater than another column. Try >> dividing the ICV by 1e6 and see if you get more similar results. >> >> doug >> >> soft.join Huang wrote: >> >> Doug, >> Thanks for your reply. >> I recalculated the beta value and got the same results as the >> Matlab does, but be different from the mri_glmfit's. I can not >> figure out where the problem is. >> Details following: >> I use the command >> mri_glmfit --table lh.volume.txt --fsgd >> volume.gender.fsgd doss --C gender.diff.mtx --glmdir lh.vol.glmdir >> to finish regression analysis. and got the beta value ( >> beta1 = 1.9781e+03, beta2 = 2.0639e+03, beta3 = 110.9220, >> beta4 = 5.1964e-04 ) from beta.mgh file. >> Using X.mat file and the same dependent variable Y.mat as >> mri_glmfit's, I got totally different results in Matlab( beta1 >> = 5.19e+02, beta2 = 4.44e+02, beta3 = 90.32, beta4 = 0.0015 ). >> I don't know how it happened... >> Hope for your reply. >> The data I used are all in the attachment. >> Best Regrads, >> Lijie Huang >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>> wrote: >> >> Lijie, >> >> I don't know what the matlab regress() function does. >> mri_glmfit >> is just >> solving the GLM equation, which you can do easily in matlab: >> >> beta = inv(X'*X)*X'*y; >> >> try that and see if you get the same as mri_glmfit. >> >> doug >> >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit. >> > In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which >> containing the >> matrix X ( >> > size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value >> from >> beta.mgh >> > file. >> > Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the >> beta using >> > function regress in matlab, but got a different result >> from that of >> > mri_glmfit. >> > I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in >> algorithm >> > between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress( >> regress(Y,X) )? >> or I made >> > some mistakes during the procedure. >> > The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the >> attachment. >> > >> > Thanks in advance >> > >> > Lijie Huang >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Freesurfer mailing list >> > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> >> >> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer >> >> >> >> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the >> person to >> whom it is >> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in >> error and >> the e-mail >> contains patient information, please contact the Partners >> Compliance HelpLine at >> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was >> sent to >> you in error >> but does not contain patient information, please contact the >> sender and properly >> dispose of the e-mail. >> >> >> >> -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. >> MGH-NMR Center >> >> gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> >> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 >> >> Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting >> <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> >> >> FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html >> <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html> >> >> >> > -- > Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. > MGH-NMR Center > gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 > > Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting > FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html > >
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail.
