+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

  1. #1
    Points: 33, Level: 1
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 17

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Lightbulb Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable




    For the regression:
    ln(gestation) = 5.28 + 0.0104×Birthweight

    For the birthweight and gestation data, Minitab tells us that coefficient of birthweight(b1) = 0.01041.

    minitab output:

    and therefore:

    exp(b1)=exp(0.010410)=1.01

    The result tells us that the predicted median gestation changes by a factor of 1.01 for each one unit increase in birthweight. And for a 10-unit increase, median gestation changes by (1.01)^10 = 1.105 times.

    My question:
    For the reverse, does it mean that median gestation (changes) reduces by a factor of exp(0.010410)^(-1)=0.9896 for each unit decrease in birthweight? And for a 10-unit decrease, median gestation changes by exp(0.010410)^(-10)=0.9011 times?
    Last edited by hymth; 07-05-2017 at 09:04 PM. Reason: emphasizing on question cuz it was not clear

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 18,889, Level: 87
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    CowboyBear's Avatar
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,062
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 427 Times in 328 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    Sorry for the delay - your post was held up by our spam software (it can get antsy for posts including attachments from new members!)
    Matt aka CB | twitter.com/matthewmatix

  3. #3
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,253, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,989
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked 1,185 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    Length of gestation? Seems right. Don't have to exp, in no exp DV as percentage. I would multiply coefficient before back-transforming, is there a difference in solution doing it that way - can't remember my power rules?
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  4. #4
    Human
    Points: 12,666, Level: 73
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    GretaGarbo's Avatar
    Posts
    1,360
    Thanks
    455
    Thanked 462 Times in 402 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    Isn't it more natural to think about the birth weight as the dependent variable and the gestation period as the explanatory variable?

    But what is the question in post 1?

  5. #5
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,253, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,989
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked 1,185 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    That is what I was trying to get at as well!
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  6. #6
    Points: 33, Level: 1
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 17

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    Thanks for the response so far, no worries about the delay admin

    I have rephrased the question in the first post of this thread. Usually when we relate to regression coefficients of the independent variables, we would be looking to describe "per unit increase of the independent variable, how much would the dependent variable change", I am wondering if my assumption of the "amount of change in the independent variable per unit decrease in the dependent variable"

  7. #7
    Points: 33, Level: 1
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 17

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    Quote Originally Posted by hlsmith View Post
    Length of gestation? Seems right. Don't have to exp, in no exp DV as percentage. I would multiply coefficient before back-transforming, is there a difference in solution doing it that way - can't remember my power rules?
    Do you mind given an example with numbers?

  8. #8
    Omega Contributor
    Points: 38,253, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    hlsmith's Avatar
    Location
    Not Ames, IA
    Posts
    6,989
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked 1,185 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable

    A 1 unit increase in birth weight results in an expected 0.0104% increase in gestation. There is a fabulous article in "Epidemiology" that breaks down the use of log transformations. I think circa 2015.

    Also for reference, just exponentiating the coefficient is an approximation, which I believe pretty much holds if the coefficient is 0.1 or less. Just for future endeavors, there is a more precise formula.
    Stop cowardice, ban guns!

  9. #9
    Points: 33, Level: 1
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 17

    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Log-transforming Only the Dependent Variable


    Quote Originally Posted by hlsmith View Post
    A 1 unit increase in birth weight results in an expected 0.0104% increase in gestation. There is a fabulous article in "Epidemiology" that breaks down the use of log transformations. I think circa 2015.

    Also for reference, just exponentiating the coefficient is an approximation, which I believe pretty much holds if the coefficient is 0.1 or less. Just for future endeavors, there is a more precise formula.
    Hi hlsmith, taking 100*coefficient is the approximation usually for coefficients less than 0.1, 100*[exp(coefficient)] is the exact estimation that I have employed above. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I found an article about this to share:
    https://www.cscu.cornell.edu/news/statnews/stnews83.pdf

+ Reply to Thread

           




Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts






Advertise on Talk Stats