turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

Find a Community

- Home
- /
- Analytics
- /
- Stat Procs
- /
- Intepretation of quadratic effect in logistic regr...

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

07-14-2016 08:27 PM

Dear SAS forumers,

Can I please ask how do I interpret the age effect from the estimates produced by the code below?

Thank you very much.

Parameter | Estimate | Standard Error | P-value§ |

Intercept | -2.5487 | 0.6559 | 0.0001 |

Age | 0.062 | 0.0267 | 0.0204 |

Age in quadratic | -0.001 | 0.0003 | 0.0032 |

```
proc genmod data=dset2 plots=all desc;
weight rimwgt;
class gpwgt / param=glm;
model Q352=age age2 ....... / dist=bin link = logit type3;
estimate 'HD2 vs HD1' gpwgt -1 1 0 0 / exp;
estimate 'HD3 vs HD1' gpwgt -1 0 1 0 / exp;
estimate 'HD4 vs HD1' gpwgt -1 0 0 1 / exp;
contrast 'Linear trend p-value' gpwgt -3 -1 1 3;
run;
```

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

07-14-2016 10:33 PM

Hi,

I have googled and found that if the coefficient on age is positive and the coefficient on age^2 is negative, that suggests that age has a positive effect on Q352 until a turning point is reached, e.g. -0.062/(2*-0.001)=31. Beyond that value, age has a negative impact on Q352.

Is 31 the age in years? If so, can I say as one gets older, he/she is more likely to have Q352 until a turning point is reached, eg -0.062/(2*-0.001)=31. After 31 years old, he/she will be less ikely to have Q352? Is it correct?

Thank you very much

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

07-15-2016 02:57 PM

I agree with that interpretation. The only caveat I have is that you should probably get the parameter estimates into a data set, and calculate from there. Rounding errors may be critical in this interpretation. Also, try calculating this at the confidence bounds of the parameters to get a feeling for how much variability there may be in the inflection point (it's easier than calculating the standard error of the inflection point using the delta method).

Steve Denham

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

07-18-2016 11:19 PM

Hi Steve.

Thank you for your reply.

Parameter DF Estimate Standard Error Wald 95% Confidence Limits Wald Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq Intercept 1 -2.5487 0.6559 -3.8342 -1.2633 15.1 0.0001 age 1 0.062 0.0267 0.0096 0.1143 5.37 0.0204 age2 1 -0.001 0.0003 -0.0016 -0.0003 8.67 0.0032

Inflection point and its confidence bounds as you suggested via -age/(2*age2),

inflection_ Label age age2 point Estimate 0.0619612101 -0.00095217047629 32.537 LowerWaldCL 0.0095774949 -0.00158594223929 3.019 UpperWaldCL 0.1143449253 -0.00031839871329 179.562

What does this indicate? It seems like there is a lot of variability in this inflection point with such wide confidence bounds(from 3 to 180 years old? We only have have individuals aged between 12 and 80 in our data). Is it an indication of dropping age2 in spite of being significant?

Another question is if 32.5years old is the turning point ignoring the large variability, is it correct to intepret the estimate from the first table as one year increase in age will increase Q352 by exp(0.062)=6.4% [between exp(0.0096) =.96% and exp(0.1143)=12%]. However, it will be exp(-.001)=10% [between exp(-0.0016)=16% and exp(-0.0003)=3%] less likely to have Q352 as every one year increase in age after 32.5 years old.

By the way @SteveDenham, would you be able to provide me the reference to the delta method so I can have a read?

Your insight is greatly appreciated.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

07-20-2016 01:26 PM

Not surprising that the "error" bounds are so wide--after all, it is a quadratic. But that is why the delta method was worked out. Here is a great source to get started (although the coding is in R):

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/r/faq/deltamethod.htm

As far as interpreting, remember that the linear and quadratic terms are correlated, and so you must address both at once when looking at single-unit changes. It is not like two separate regressors, where you can look at a unit change in one, and assume the other is unchanged.

Steve Denham