<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: proc LOGISTIC - detecting quasi-complete separation in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186313#M9661</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I like the Firth penalized ML method, but if that is not available due to prior decisions, I would try something like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;proc means data=yourdata nway noprint;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;class iv1--iv&amp;lt;how many independent variables you have&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;var dependent;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;output out=datachek sum=sum;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;run;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would then look at any situations where the sum was zero for one of the combinations of the independent variables.&amp;nbsp; By including appropriate ID variables, you could then exclude these cases from the dataset.&amp;nbsp; This assumes that the quasi-separability arises from categorical predictors which have only zeroes (or ones, but it is easier to find the zeroes) for some combination of the predictors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:41:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-01-02T18:41:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>proc LOGISTIC - detecting quasi-complete separation</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186311#M9659</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a macro which is used to do produce a number of Odds ratios for different datasets/subsets etc.. However, some comparisons produce warnings in the SAS log that I want to get rid of properly. The warning I refer is:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;WARNING: There is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points. The maximum likelihood estimate may not exist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can't change the model or anything proc logistic. The requirement is to not perform logistic analysis for such data. Is there a way in SAS I could reliably check data if proc logistic will through this warning or not (without producing errors or warnings in the log?). My theoretical solution is a little bit complicated (produce temp dataset to feed into proc logistic, run another SAS session (child process) with %sysexec that will only do proc logistic and check the log/lst/RC for abnormalities after child process finished running). So, I'd like to hear simpler/better approach to this problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;p.s. NOWARN options is not a solution, because I need to see warnings for other cases and to skip data for logistic regression.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks and happy around exp(7.6078780732785....) !&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Tomas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:23:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186311#M9659</guid>
      <dc:creator>TD</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-02T16:23:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: proc LOGISTIC - detecting quasi-complete separation</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186312#M9660</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it practical to use the Firth option with your data?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:15:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186312#M9660</guid>
      <dc:creator>ballardw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-02T18:15:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: proc LOGISTIC - detecting quasi-complete separation</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186313#M9661</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I like the Firth penalized ML method, but if that is not available due to prior decisions, I would try something like:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;proc means data=yourdata nway noprint;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;class iv1--iv&amp;lt;how many independent variables you have&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;var dependent;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;output out=datachek sum=sum;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;run;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would then look at any situations where the sum was zero for one of the combinations of the independent variables.&amp;nbsp; By including appropriate ID variables, you could then exclude these cases from the dataset.&amp;nbsp; This assumes that the quasi-separability arises from categorical predictors which have only zeroes (or ones, but it is easier to find the zeroes) for some combination of the predictors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Denham&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:41:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/proc-LOGISTIC-detecting-quasi-complete-separation/m-p/186313#M9661</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveDenham</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-01-02T18:41:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

