Skip to content
Prev 8614 / 20628 Next

fixed effects/log transformations question

Gus Jespersen <jesper <at> u.washington.edu> writes:
No, but the interpretation is a little bit subtle.  Here you
are working with (as far as I can tell) the back-transformed
confidence intervals on the effect of the treatment.
10^{-0.5826,0.02578} is {0.26,1.06} (where did you get 0.295??); 
this says that the lower CI is that the proportional effect of
the treatment is to multiply by 0.26 (a 74% decrease); the upper
CI is a 6% increase (you can subtract 1 from the CI values if you
want to get it in terms of proportional changes).
  If you were using the natural log (log_e) rather than the log10
scale, then you could interpret *small* (near zero) parameters as
being approximately equivalent to proportional changes (without
back-transforming), because exp(x)-1 is approximately x when
x is small ...

  For what it's worth, this isn't an R question, or a mixed-model
question, any more, it's become a general statistical question -- you
might try asking similar questions on http://stats.stackexchange.com
...