Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification on "Jtrans" package #1

Open
SyamkumarR opened this issue Oct 27, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Clarification on "Jtrans" package #1

SyamkumarR opened this issue Oct 27, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@SyamkumarR
Copy link

SyamkumarR commented Oct 27, 2016

Recently, I came across an R-package "jtrans" and found to be very useful. I would like to clarify the following doubts regarding the package.

  1. How do I back transform the data?
  2. I have a non-normal dataset which I tried to transform using the package, but didnt work. Can you suggest me a solution?

The codes are given below:

read.table(textConnection("treat repl effect1 transformed
ctrl 1 4.5568 -0.94855895
ctrl 2 7.2874 -0.61241869
ctrl 3 2.0557 -1.5307805
ctrl 4 0.8671 -2.24734323
ctrl 5 2.0416 -1.53599825
treat1 1 13.9265 -0.13786884
treat1 2 13.098667 -0.18394011
treat1 3 14.4454 -0.11019863
treat1 4 15.944 -0.03484184
treat1 5 15.307182 -0.06608971
treat2 1 37.434 0.69328341
treat2 2 37.175889 0.6864524
treat2 3 22.9898 0.25623886
treat2 4 14.8152 -0.0910007
treat2 5 14.589091 -0.10268909
treat3 1 10.0914 -0.37676977
treat3 2 14.581556 -0.1030813
treat3 3 2.1069 -1.51216859
treat3 4 1.7222 -1.6666435
treat3 5 2.516182 -1.37945895
treat4 1 28.5665 0.44154336
treat4 2 24.951333 0.32471788
treat4 3 31.5415 0.53054774
treat4 4 43.0154 0.83616312
treat4 5 30.381909 0.49651044
treat5 1 21.1001 0.18601383
treat5 2 14.885111 -0.08741789
treat5 3 17.2256 0.02497832
treat5 4 13.227 -0.17663297
treat5 5 12.561 -0.21526148
treat6 1 9.1758 -0.44606229
treat6 2 6.126222 -0.73683883
treat6 3 7.7394 -0.5691373
treat6 4 7.8217 -0.56151922
treat6 5 8.132455 -0.53343019
treat7 1 94.2584 2.3052373
treat7 2 98.629556 2.55639605
treat7 3 99.6842 2.63047148
treat7 4 90.0177 2.11485905
treat7 5 80.996182 1.79815736
treat8 1 43.508 0.84840624
treat8 2 46.841889 0.93013131
treat8 3 46.3398 0.91793466
treat8 4 42.6801 0.82780097
treat8 5 42.992273 0.8355871
treat9 1 56.5082 1.16099219
treat9 2 57.110111 1.17530181
treat9 3 52.3417 1.06202199
treat9 4 44.8252 0.88091602
treat9 5 61.326909 1.27612697
treat10 1 1.5229 -1.76342652
treat10 2 2.020444 -1.54390408
treat10 3 0.8935 -2.21915988
treat10 4 0.519 -2.81626084
treat10 5 0.907 -2.20520354
treat11 1 8.9524 -0.4639497
treat11 2 9.410111 -0.42773525
treat11 3 10.884 -0.3213404
treat11 4 7.9897 -0.54620392
treat11 5 8.716091 -0.4833343
"),header=T)->dat

jt<- jtrans(dat$effect1)
plot(density(dat$effect1))
plot(density(jt$transformed))
qqnorm(jt$transformed)
qqline(jt$transformed)
jtrans(md5$root, test = "ad.test")
predict(jt, dat$effect1)

dat$transformed<-jt$transformed
aov(transformedtreat,data=dat)->m1
shapiro.test(resid(m1))
ad.test(resid(m1))
gls(transformed
treat,data=dat)->m1
shapiro.test(resid(m1))
ad.test(resid(m1))

@wangyuchen
Copy link
Owner

wangyuchen commented Nov 1, 2016

Transform it back is a good idea. I'll update it with this feature. Now exporting a LaTeX equation using transeq(jt) is the best it can do, you can easily transform it back based on that.

As for your data, I did the transformation and both shapiro.test and nortest::ad.test give a non-significant p-value. Their density plots all look quite normal. Sometimes the transformation doesn't work when the original distribution is bimodal, but your data doesn't look like that.

@wangyuchen
Copy link
Owner

@SyamkumarR What exactly is the use case of transforming it back? If it was on the original data, you should have it already; if it was on another normal data, I don't see why you want to do that, and the transformation may not apply, i.e. the target distribution may not be your original distribution.

@SyamkumarR
Copy link
Author

Hi,
It is customary to have the data back-transformed when reporting.
Otherwise, it becomes difficult to interpret. For example, it is difficult
to interpret the mean "leaf area" on a log scale (log transformed).

Syamkumar R
Research Scholar,
SES, CUSAT

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Yuchen Wang [email protected]
wrote:

@SyamkumarR https://github.com/SyamkumarR What exactly is the use case
of transforming it back? If it was on the original data, you should have it
already; if it was on another normal data, I don't see why you want to do
that, and the transformation may not apply, i.e. the target distribution
may not be your original distribution.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWB8KGH4jpeEso5nNaA5TAXV-ltih89Rks5q6z6NgaJpZM4KiWdB
.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants