umx
hampusgronvall
Joined: 05/24/2023
Saving umxReduceACE output
Hi again all, very sorry for double posting, but I figured since it's two different questions they should be in two separate topics.
Using umxReduceACE on an ACE-model will print out a wonderful comparison between different models, but is there any way to save it?
- Read more about Saving umxReduceACE output
- Log in or register to post comments
hampusgronvall
Joined: 05/24/2023
Wildly different results using combined data vs dzData and mzData for umxACE?
Hi there!
When I run umxACE on the same data-set using either the data argument versus dzData and mzData arguments, I get wildly different results. I noticed this when working on my own data that I unfortunately can not share, but it's also replicated in the twinData sample set. Is there something I'm misunderstanding here?
Thanks!
Hampus
Code:
noamMai
Joined: 03/20/2023
interpreting a bivariate ACE model with negative variance using umxACEv
Hi all,
The short form of my question is: is there a way to model a bivariate model using umxACEv, where the model for one variable is ACE (or its submodels) and the model for the other variable is ADE (or its submodels)?
It seems from [this thread](https://openmx.ssri.psu.edu/thread/4172) that this is theoretically possible, but I'm unsure if the umx syntax enables it.
lf-araujo
Joined: 11/25/2020
umx multigroup not printing out CIs for all parameters, but only for one group?
Hi all,
Hopefully the hangover from Boulder has passed when you read this :)
I want the CIs from this multigroup SEM, but it is only printing out the paths for males (I think). Here is the MWE, data in the attached:
m1 <- " # RI-CLPM with 3 timepoints
# latents
psy_0 =~ saps_0 + sans_0
psy_24 =~ saps_24 + sans_24
psy_48 =~ saps_48 + sans_48
# random intercepts
ri_psy =~ 1*psy_0 + 1*psy_24 + 1*psy_48
ri_vol =~ 1*total_gray_vol_0 + 1*total_gray_vol_24 + 1*total_gray_vol_48
gdash
Joined: 11/29/2021
Troubleshooting umxGXEbiv error
Hello,
I am trying to run a bivariate moderation model with a continuous moderator that varies across co-twins (which I am very new to!). When I try to run the model, I receive the following error (using Tryhard also throws errors):
"Error incurred trying to run model: model = mxTryHard(model) might help?
assignment of an object of class “list” is not valid for @‘values’ in an object of class “FullMatrix”; is(value, "matrix") is not TRUE"
Might you be able to advise on the source of this error and how to remedy?
- Read more about Troubleshooting umxGXEbiv error
- 4 comments
- Log in or register to post comments
EmilieRH
Joined: 09/24/2020
umxGxE with quadratic mean effects
Hi all,
Is it possible to modify the umxGxE function to include quadratic mean effects in the case where the twins do not share the moderator? If not, can anyone refer me to an R script that estimates Purcell’s original ACE-XYZ-M model with quadratic mean effects?
Best regards,
Emilie
- Read more about umxGxE with quadratic mean effects
- Log in or register to post comments
gdash
Joined: 11/29/2021
Bivariate umxACE model data length error
Hello,
I am new to using umx, so I apologize for asking what is perhaps a very simple question. I am trying to run a bivariate ACE model using binary variables (they are structured as ordered factors). When I run the model, I receive the warning message copied below alongside model output:
In matrix(labels, nrow, ncol, byrow = byrow) :
data length [3] is not a sub-multiple or multiple of the number of rows [2]
- Read more about Bivariate umxACE model data length error
- 10 comments
- Log in or register to post comments
mirusem
Joined: 11/19/2018
Difference between running umxConfint then mxSE vs mxSE directly
I was wondering what the difference might be when you create a umx ACEv model and to get the standard estimates (for purposes outside of the likelihood based CIs using umxConfint) you use mxSE on the parameter of interest.
So essentially, doing:
ACE=umxACEv()
umxConfint(ACE, run=TRUE)
^Extract CIs from here (using summary).
Then doing:
mxSE(top.A_std,ACE,run=TRUE)
vs just:
ACE=umxACEv()
mxSE(top.A_std,ACE,run=TRUE)
mirusem
Joined: 11/19/2018
Error for testing assumptions of ACE model
One last question hopefully for now (I am using one of the scripts by Hermine Maes that uses umx to test the general assumptions of the twin design: [oneSATu.pdf](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58b2481a9f7456906a3b9600/t/5a9cfe548165f5587482dec5/1520238164994/oneSATu.pdf)
For a given phenotype I've gotten this error:
> All fit attempts resulted in errors - check starting values or model specification
> Error in if (rfu == "r'Wr") { : argument is of length zero
- Read more about Error for testing assumptions of ACE model
- 6 comments
- Log in or register to post comments
mirusem
Joined: 11/19/2018
tryHard option retry limit reached (valid attempts)?
I was kind of surprised to see (before I used the tryHard option) not having any issues per se, but when I did incorporate it, it looks like sometimes the output of a phenotype would be, for example: Retry limit reached; Best fit=-353.49615 (started at -352.57463) (11 attempt(s): 2 valid, 9 errors)
Does that mean it was a success and it just picks one of the valid solutions? It is certainly different from the output:
Solution found! Final fit=-332.97766 (started at -295.8754) (2 attempt(s): 2 valid, 0 errors).
- Read more about tryHard option retry limit reached (valid attempts)?
- Log in or register to post comments