I am converting a SAS PROC GENMOD example into R, using glm in R. The SAS code was:
proc genmod data=data0 namelen=30;
model boxcoxy=boxcoxxy ~ AGEGRP4 + AGEGRP5 + AGEGRP6 + AGEGRP7 + AGEGRP8 + RACE1 + RACE3 + WEEKEND +
SEQ/dist=normal;
FREQ REPLICATE_VAR;
run;
My R code is:
parmsg2 <- glm(boxcoxxy ~ AGEGRP4 + AGEGRP5 + AGEGRP6 + AGEGRP7 + AGEGRP8 + RACE1 + RACE3 + WEEKEND +
SEQ , data=data0, family=gaussian, weights = REPLICATE_VAR)
When I use summary(parmsg2) I get the same coefficient estimates as in SAS, but my standard errors are wildly different.
The summary output from SAS is:
Name df Estimate StdErr LowerWaldCL UpperWaldCL ChiSq ProbChiSq
Intercept 1 6.5007436 .00078884 6.4991975 6.5022897 67911982 0
agegrp4 1 .64607262 .00105425 .64400633 .64813891 375556.79 0
agegrp5 1 .4191395 .00089722 .41738099 .42089802 218233.76 0
agegrp6 1 -.22518765 .00083118 -.22681672 -.22355857 73401.113 0
agegrp7 1 -1.7445189 .00087569 -1.7462352 -1.7428026 3968762.2 0
agegrp8 1 -2.2908855 .00109766 -2.2930369 -2.2887342 4355849.4 0
race1 1 -.13454883 .00080672 -.13612997 -.13296769 27817.29 0
race3 1 -.20607036 .00070966 -.20746127 -.20467944 84319.131 0
weekend 1 .0327884 .00044731 .0319117 .03366511 5373.1931 0
seq2 1 -.47509583 .00047337 -.47602363 -.47416804 1007291.3 0
Scale 1 2.9328613 .00015586 2.9325559 2.9331668 -127
The summary output from R is:
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 6.50074 0.10354 62.785 < 2e-16
AGEGRP4 0.64607 0.13838 4.669 3.07e-06
AGEGRP5 0.41914 0.11776 3.559 0.000374
AGEGRP6 -0.22519 0.10910 -2.064 0.039031
AGEGRP7 -1.74452 0.11494 -15.178 < 2e-16
AGEGRP8 -2.29089 0.14407 -15.901 < 2e-16
RACE1 -0.13455 0.10589 -1.271 0.203865
RACE3 -0.20607 0.09315 -2.212 0.026967
WEEKEND 0.03279 0.05871 0.558 0.576535
SEQ -0.47510 0.06213 -7.646 2.25e-14
The importance of the difference in the standard errors is that the SAS coefficients are all statistically significant, but the RACE1 and WEEKEND coefficients in the R output are not. I have found a formula to calculate the Wald confidence intervals in R, but this is pointless given the difference in the standard errors, as I will not get the same results.
Apparently SAS uses a ridge-stabilized Newton-Raphson algorithm for its estimates, which are ML. The information I read about the glm function in R is that the results should be equivalent to ML. What can I do to change my estimation procedure in R so that I get the equivalent coefficents and standard error estimates that were produced in SAS?
To update, thanks to Spacedman's answer, I used weights because the data are from individuals in a dietary survey, and REPLICATE_VAR is a balanced repeated replication weight, that is an integer (and quite large, in the order of 1000s or 10000s). The website that describes the weight is here. I don't know why the FREQ rather than the WEIGHT command was used in SAS. I will now test by expanding the number of observations using REPLICATE_VAR and rerunning the analysis.
