Yes, you're right: taking logarithms is no longer needed!
Christian
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, min
me.com
Subject: Re: [R] drc results differ for different versions
Hi Hans,
I hope I can resolve your problems below (Marc, thank you very much for cc'ing
me on your
initial response!).
Have a look at the following R lines:
## Fitting the model using drm() (from the latest version)
m1<
Hi Hans,
I hope I can resolve your problems below (Marc, thank you very much for cc'ing
me on your
initial response!).
Have a look at the following R lines:
## Fitting the model using drm() (from the latest version)
m1<- drm(response ~ dose, data = d, fct = LL.4())
summary(m1)
plot(m1)
## Che
Hello
Thanks a lot Marc, for the suggestion to explore the issue a bit more
systematically
So I did and the conclusion is that with the old drc 1.4-2, I get a
SE=0.003, with the new drc 1.5-2, I get a SE=0.4
irrespective of the R version or the version of the packages drc depends
on
I hope somebod
On May 20, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Hans Vermeiren wrote:
Hello,
We use drc to fit dose-response curves, recently we discovered that
there are quite different standard error values returned for the same
dataset depending on the drc-version / R-version that was used (not
clear which factor is importan
Hello,
We use drc to fit dose-response curves, recently we discovered that
there are quite different standard error values returned for the same
dataset depending on the drc-version / R-version that was used (not
clear which factor is important)
On R 2.9.0 using drc_1.6-3 we get an IC50 of 1.27447
6 matches
Mail list logo
