Modelling growth data: time polynomials as random effects
Dear LMER Experts, I am trying to model some growth data based on multiple ultrasound measurements taken across the time course (in days) of each pregnancy. The vast majority of subjects have 4+ measurements. Everything seems good up to:
model.ac1 <- lmer(y.ac ~ TIME + I(TIME^2) + I(TIME^3) + (TIME|STUDYNO), data=s.workdat, method="ML", na.action=na.omit)
summary(model.ac1)
Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood
Formula: y.ac ~ TIME + I(TIME^2) + I(TIME^3) + (TIME | STUDYNO)
Data: s.workdat
AIC BIC logLik MLdeviance REMLdeviance
-5051 -5004 2532 -5065 -4978
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr
STUDYNO (Intercept) 6.3577e-02 0.2521444
TIME 1.7435e-06 0.0013204 -0.828
Residual 1.3597e-02 0.1166055
number of obs: 6066, groups: STUDYNO, 1289
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error t value
(Intercept) 1.309e+00 1.313e-01 9.970
TIME 5.825e-02 2.160e-03 26.963
I(TIME^2) -1.113e-04 1.144e-05 -9.723
I(TIME^3) 7.197e-08 1.957e-08 3.678
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr) TIME I(TIME^2
TIME -0.996
I(TIME^2) 0.988 -0.997
I(TIME^3) -0.976 0.991 -0.998
However as the slope consists of the polynomial combination (TIME +
TIME^2 + TIME^3) intuitively it would seem correct to include these
polynomial terms as random effects. However, everything goes
pair-shaped when I try:
test.ac3 <- lmer(y.ac ~ TIME + I(TIME^2) + I(TIME^3) + (TIME+I(TIME^2)+I(TIME^3)|STUDYNO), data=s.workdat, method="ML", na.action=na.omit)
Warning messages: 1: In .local(x, ..., value) : Estimated variance-covariance for factor ?STUDYNO? is singular 2: In .local(x, ..., value) : nlminb returned message false convergence (8) I am assuming that this is due to the strong correlations between the polynomials of TIME. I also performed this analysis on the subset of subjects with 5 or greater ultrasound measurements (in desperation! n=1024) and obtained the same error message. My dilemma is explaining why TIME has both a fixed and random component, whereas TIME^2 and TIME^3 only have a fixed component. I suspect I am missing something fundamental !!! I have also had some fun fitting different AR structures but decided to strip back the model to the basic correlation structure for this question. Any help would be very much appreciated. kindest regards, julie marsh PhD Student Centre for Genetic Epidemiology University of Western Autsralia email: marshj02 at student.uwa.edu.au