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

Showing results for

- Home
- /
- Analytics
- /
- Stat Procs
- /
- PROC GLIMMIX & Missing values

Options

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

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Posted 08-08-2016 11:42 AM
(5250 views)

Getting a lot of observations that are dropped when using PROC GLIMMIX procedure. The note reads:

Some observations are not used in the analysis because of: missing response values (n=52508), missing fixed effects

(n=53078), zero or negative weight (n=5972), not a proportion (n=36597).

NOTE: Convergence criterion (GCONV=1E-8) satisfied.

When comparing the number of observations for the PROC GLIMMIX procedure and running an OLS model, these are the comparisons:

Number of observations read: 132032

Number of observations used Glimmix procedure: 41428

Number of observations used OLS procedure: 77209

Number of observations for dependent variable: 79524

Any suggestions as to why there is such a discrepancy in number of observations read for Glimmix would be appreciated.

4 REPLIES 4

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

It would be helpful to know what options you are using for PROC GLIMMIX and the other procedure.

For example, the "not a proportion" note might indicate that you are using the DIST=BINOMINAL option instead of the DIST=BINARY option. There was an post last year in which the OP had a similar note.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

Doing a quasi-likelihood regression, so here are the options:

PROC GLIMMIX DATA = TEST;

MODEL QALY =

INCOME

AGE

....ETC

/LINK = LOGIT S DIST = BETA;

output out=fracout pred(ilink)=pred lcl(ilink)=lower ucl(ilink)=upper;

RANDOM _RESIDUAL_;

WEIGHT WTFA;

RUN;

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

With link=logit and dist=beta, I would guess that the values falling into the "not a proportion" are greater than 1 or less than 0. That would lead to this. As far as missing response/missing fixed effects part, it looks like that a large part of these overlap. OLS would not detect that a large part of the values did not fit the specified distribution.

Steve Denham

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content

**between** 0 and 1 (0 < *prop* < 1). **That means that all 0s and 1s are converted to missing values**. You cannot use the beta distribution if you have 0 and 1 unless you want to throw away data. Many references fail to make this clear. To get around this, you only have ad hoc solutions. For instance: Convert all 0s to a very small number (smaller than the smallest nonzero real value that you could observe). Same idea for the 1s. Of course, this is creating artificial data. Would be OK for occassional 0s and 1s, but it appears that you have many.

**Available on demand!**

Missed SAS Innovate Las Vegas? Watch all the action for free! View the keynotes, general sessions and 22 breakouts on demand.

What is ANOVA?

ANOVA, or Analysis Of Variance, is used to compare the averages or means of two or more populations to better understand how they differ. Watch this tutorial for more.

Find more tutorials on the SAS Users YouTube channel.