1989
DOI: 10.1093/biomet/76.4.643
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The multivariate Poisson-log normal distribution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
191
1
4

Year Published

1993
1993
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 268 publications
(196 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
191
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Bulmer (20) fitted the species abundance data, which showed that truncated, grouped LN distributions provided a satisfactory fit over the logarithmic and P-LN models, omitting zero class. Other models exist that can be useful for explaining data with a priori knowledge of the underlying distribution, such as multivariate P-LN distributions (21), bivariate Poisson distributions (19), and so on. However, LN distributions are ubiquitous and have been observed across many fields (22,23).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bulmer (20) fitted the species abundance data, which showed that truncated, grouped LN distributions provided a satisfactory fit over the logarithmic and P-LN models, omitting zero class. Other models exist that can be useful for explaining data with a priori knowledge of the underlying distribution, such as multivariate P-LN distributions (21), bivariate Poisson distributions (19), and so on. However, LN distributions are ubiquitous and have been observed across many fields (22,23).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the exception of Breast Cancer, these estimated correlation matrices are similar to those seen with the MCAR model, the correlation with Lung (F), Oral (F) and Oral (M) are greater in magnitude when estimated by the latent structure model, the Aitchison and Ho (1989) moment estimators are somewhere between either of these estimated. It would also appear that the main differences between these assumed correlation matrices (over which all inter-disease dependence is averaged) are in terms of the relationship between cervical cancer and Oral Cancer (M and F) as well as Lung Cancer (M).…”
Section: Latent Structure Mixture Spatial Modelmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…The goodness of fit statistics 21 are roughly comparable for the two models. The biggest difference arises in the over dispersion statistics 22 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Even if the covariates of the covariance structure were not significant for a specific sample in the multivariate model it would not reduce the importance of the approach. 21 The goodness of fit statistic is the scaled deviance (SAS 9.0). 22 The over dispersion statistic is the lagrange multiplier statistic from Greene [25].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%