I was told that I need a 3x2x2 mixed ANOVA. I am new relatively new to SPSS. I was wondering if someone could explain how to the data needs to be structured in SPSS. Meaning, how would I structure the rows and columns?
I have 3 trials of data (each trial containing hundreds of measurements) with 2 treatment conditions (0 Volts, and 15 Volts), and 2 different substrates used on which I grew cells (TCPS and PCSA) this is the in-between groups.
Please see this Infographic
I originally ran multiple T-tests but was told to do ANOVA, here is the original plot with t-tests (it gives an idea of how I originally intended to look at the data).
As a side note- if anyone knows how to do this with python, I am also open to do it that way. Just based one what I have gathered, SPSS seems to be the only route.
For anyone in the future: I was not able to do this in SPSS. However doing this in R is relatively simple. Put all data in one column of a CSV file (all 3 trials). For my case I had 3 additional columns of identifiers (Trial, Voltage, and Substrate). Open the file in R, store the data as a model, then run the ANOVA on the model with:
model1 <- lm(NeuriteLength ~ Trial + Substrate*Voltage, data = D)
anova(model1)
Related
I have a complex data model consisting of around hundred tables containing business data. Some tables are very wide, up to four hundred columns. Columns can have various data types - integers, decimals, text, dates etc. I'm looking for a way to identify relevant / important information stored in these tables.
I fully understand that business knowledge is essential to correctly process a data model. What I'm looking for are some strategies to pre-process tables and identify columns that should be taken to later stage where analysts will actually look into it. For example, I could use data profiling and statistics to find and exclude columns that don't have any data at all. Or maybe all records have the same value. This way I could potentially eliminate 30% of fields. However, I'm interested in exploring how AI and Machine Learning techniques could be used to identify important columns, hoping I could identify around 80% of relevant data. I'm aware, that relevant information will depend on the questions I want to ask. But even then, I hope I could narrow the columns to simplify the manual assesment taking place in the next stage.
Could anyone provide some guidance on how to use AI and Machine Learning to identify relevant columns in such wide tables? What strategies and techniques can be used to pre-process tables and identify columns that should be taken to the next stage?
Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
F.
The most common approach I've seen to evaluate the analytical utility of columns is the correlation method. This would tell you if there is a relationship (positive or negative) among specific column pairs. In my experience you'll be able to more easily build analysis outputs when columns are correlated - although, these analyses may not always be the most accurate.
However, before you even do that, like you indicate, you would probably need to narrow down your list of columns using much simpler methods. For example, you could surely eliminate a whole bunch of columns based on datatype and basic count statistics.
Less common analytic data types (ids, blobs, binary, etc) can probably be excluded first, followed by running simple COUNT(Distinct(ColName)), and Count(*) where ColName is null . This will help to eliminating UniqueIDs, Keys, and other similar data types. If all the rows are distinct, this would not be a good field for analysis. Same process for NULLs, if the percentage of nulls is greater than some threshold then you can eliminate those columns as well.
In order to automate it depending on your database, you could create a fairly simple stored procedure or function that loops through all the tables and columns and does a data type, count_distinct and a null percentage analysis on each field.
Once you've narrowed down list of columns, you can consider a .corr() function to run the analysis against all the remaining columns in something like a Python script.
If you wanted to keep everything in the database, Postgres also supports a corr() aggregate function, but you'll only be able to run this on 2 columns at a time, like this:
SELECT corr(column1,column2) FROM table;
so you'll need to build a procedure that evaluates multiple columns at once.
Thought about this tech challenges for some time. In general it’s AI solvable problem since there are easy features to extract such as unique values, clustering, distribution, etc.
And we want to bake this ability in https://columns.ai, obviously we haven’t gotten there yet, the first step we have done though is to collect all columns stats upon a data connection, identify columns that have similar range of unique values and generate a bunch of query templates for users to explore its dataset.
If interested, please take a look, as we keep advancing this part, it will become closer to an AI model to find relevant columns. Cheers!
I was analyzing a dataset in which i have column names as follows: [id , location, tweet, target_value]. I want to handle the missing values for column location in some rows. So i thought to extract location from tweet column from that row(if tweet contains some location) itself and put that value in the location column for that row.
Now i have some questions regarding above approach.
Is this a good way to do it this way?. Can we fill some missing values by using the training data itself?. Will not this be considered as a redundant feature(because we are deriving the values of this feature using some other feature)
Can you please clarify your dataset a little bit more?
First, If we assume that the location is the information of the tweet that has been posted from, then your method (filling out the location columns in the rows in which that information is missing) becomes wrong.
Secondly, if we assume that the tweet contains the location information correctly, then you can fill out the missing rows using the tweets' location information.
If our second assumption is correct, then it would be a good way because you are feeding your dataset with correct information. In other words, you are giving the model a more detailed information so that it could predict more correctly in the testing process.
Regarding to your question about "Will not this be considered as a redundant feature(because we are deriving the values of this feature using some other feature)":
You can try to remove the location column from your model and train your model with the rest of your 3 columns. Then, you can check the success of the new model using different parameters (accuracy etc.). You can compare it with the results of the model that you have trained using all 4 different columns. After that, if there is not any important difference or the results become severe, then you would say it, the column is redundant. Also you can use Principal Component Analysis(PCA) to detect correlated columns.
Finally, please NEVER use training data in your test dataset. It will lead to overtraining and when you use your model in the real world environment, your model will most probably fail.
I have data containing candidates who look for a job. The original data I got was a complete mess but I managed to enhance it. Now, I am facing an issue which I am not able to resolve.
One candidate record looks like
https://i.imgur.com/LAPAIbX.png
Since ML algorithms cannot work with categorical data, I want to encode this. My goal is to have a candidate record looking like this:
https://i.imgur.com/zzsiDzy.png
What I need to change is to add a new column for each possible value that exists in Knowledge1, Knowledge2, Knowledge3, Knowledge4, Tag1, and Tag2 of original data, but without repetition. I managed to encode it to get way more attributes than I need, which results in an inaccurate model. The way I tried gives me newly created attributes Jscript_Knowledge1, Jscript_Knowledge2, Jscript_Knowledge3 and so on, for each possible option.
If the explanation is not clear enough please let me know so that I could explain it further.
Thanks and any help is highly appreciated.
Cheers!
I have some understanding of your problem based on your explanation. I will try and elaborate how I would approach this problem. If that is not solving your problem, I may need more explanation to understand your problem. Lets get started.
For all the candidate data that you would have, collect a master
skill/knowledge list
This list becomes your columns
For each candidate, if he has this skill, the column becomes 1 for his record else it stays 0
This is the essence of one hot encoding, however, since same skill is scattered across multiple columns you are struggling with autoencoding it.
An alternative approach could be:
For each candidate collect all the knowledge skills as list and assign it into 1 column for knowledge and tags as another list and assign it to another column instead of current 4(Knowledge) + 2 (tags).
Sort the knowledge(and tag) list alphabetically within this column.
Auto One hot encoding after this may yield smaller columns than earlier
Hope this helps!
I'm investigating data warehouses. And I have an issue about star schemas.
It's in
Oracle® OLAP Application Developer's Guide
10g Release 1 (10.1)
3.2.1 Dimension Table: TIME_DIM
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B13789_01/olap.101/b10333/global.htm#CHDCGABE
To represent the hierarchy MONTH -> QUARTER -> YEAR, we need some keys such as: YEAR_ID, QUARTER_ID. But there are some things that I do not understand:
1) Why do we need field YEAR_DSC & QUARTER_DSC? I think that we can look up these values from YEAR & QUARTER TABLE. And it breaks 2NF.
2) What is the normal form that a schema in data warehouse needs to satisfy? (1NF, 2NF, 3NF, or any.)
NFs (normal forms) don't matter for data warehouse base tables.
We normalize to reduce certain kinds of redundancy so that when we update a database we don't have to say the same thing in multiple places and so that we can't accidentally erroneously not say the same thing where it would need to be said in multiple places. That is not a problem in query results because we are not updating them. The same is true for a data warehouse's base tables. (Which are also just queries on its original database's base tables.)
Data warehouses are usually optimized for reading speed, and that usually means some denormalization compared to the original database to avoid recomputation at the expense of space. (Notice though that sometimes rereading something bigger can be slower than reading smaller parts and recomputing the big thing.) We probably don't want to drop normalized tables when moving to a data warehouse, because they answer simple queries and we don't want to slow down by recomputing them. Other than those tradeoffs, there's no reason not to denormalize. Some particular warehouse design methods might have their own rules about what parts should be denormalized what amounts.
(Whatever our original database design NF is chosen to be, we should always first normalize to 5NF then consciously denormalize. We don't need to normalize or know constraints to update or query a database.)
Read some textbook basics on why we normalize & why we use data warehouses.
Is there a way to compare all information (aggregates, down to the detail level) between two OLAP cubes? For example, say I wanted to compare one cube created to work with sql server 2000 to that same cube, but migrated to run on sql server 2005/2008 - technically they should both return the same information for all dimension / measure combinations but I need a way to verify.
I am definitely NOT a developer, but I do have access to enterprise manager, and potentially SAS tools etc. and I know a bit of SQL but not much else. I know that you can compare two dimensional (i.e. tables) data sets with sql queries, and also with SAS - but I have never heard of a way to compare three dimensional cubes.
Am I out of luck on this one? The last thing that I want to have to do is view both cubes and compare all possible results side by side via excel or something, I hope that it can be automated somehow.
Comparing cubes means doing enough "slice-and-dice" queries to prove that you've queried all of the facts.
You can, simply, get a sum and count of the various fact and dimension tables. If those are the same, odds are good that any particular query will be the same between the two.
Without details on the dimensions and facts in question, it's hard to make a more specific recommendation.
However, consider that you can easily compute a set of subtotals for each dimension of the cube. If the dimensions are the same number of rows, the results will be the same number of rows. If the grand total is the same, then all that's left is row-by-row comparison of the subtotals.
If you do this once for each dimension, you should have some confidence that they're the same. Or, you'll find a difference that you can explore with more detailed queries.
The best approach is to compare the cube data by interchanging the rows and columns and verifying if all the counts and totals match properly.
For example, if you are having year-wise totals for a particular location, it would be a good approach to interchange the values between locations and the months and verifying whether they match properly.