On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:25:18 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bjørn-Helge Mevik) wrote:
> "Liaw, Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > one needs to be lucky to have the first few PCs correlate well to
> > the response in case of PCR.
>
> Which is one reason PLSR is often preferred over PCR in at least the
> field of chemometrics. Since the components of PLSR maximise the
> covariance with the response, the first few components are usually
> more correlated to the response than PCs. For spectroscopists, the
> PLSR loadings are often very interpretable, and are much used to
> qualitatively validate the model.
>
> --
> Bjørn-Helge Mevik
>From what you described PLSR needs an additional validation step not
needed as much by PCR, because its optimization to the response variable
can cause overfitting. PCR does not use the response until data reduction
is completed.
Frank
---
Frank E Harrell Jr Professor and Chair School of Medicine
Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
