Diagnostics: R and Phoenix [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-05-18 17:14 (2892 d 15:17 ago) – Posting: # 16324
Views: 30,176

Hi ElMaestro et al.,

❝ Extract some model diagnostics: DF's and LogLikelihood, and compare to find out which result is the better candidate.


I can only provide the results of R and Phoenix:

R 3.2.5
library(nlme)
Subj   <- c(1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 7, 8, 9)
Dose   <- c(25, 25, 50, 50, 50, 250, 250, 250, 75, 75, 75, 250, 250, 250)
AUC    <- c(326.40, 437.82, 557.47, 764.85, 943.59, 2040.84, 2989.29,
            4107.58, 1562.42, 982.02, 1359.68, 3848.86, 4333.10, 3685.55)
Cmax   <- c(64.82, 67.35, 104.15, 143.12, 243.63, 451.44, 393.45,
            796.57, 145.13, 166.77, 296.90, 313.00, 387.00, 843.00)
resp   <- data.frame(Subj, Dose, Cmax, AUC)
resp$Subj <- factor(resp$Subj)
muddle <- lme(log(Cmax) ~ log(Dose), data=resp, random=~1|Subj)
sum.muddle <- summary(muddle)
CI.muddle  <- intervals(muddle, level=0.9, which="fixed")
print(sum.muddle); CI.muddle$fixed[, ]
Linear mixed-effects model fit by REML
 Data: resp
       AIC      BIC    logLik
  14.24355 16.18317 -3.121774

Random effects:
 Formula: ~1 | Subj
        (Intercept)  Residual
StdDev:   0.3347319 0.1206792

Fixed effects: log(Cmax) ~ log(Dose)
                Value  Std.Error DF   t-value p-value
(Intercept) 1.9413858 0.24314072  7  7.984618   1e-04
log(Dose)   0.7617406 0.04727976  5 16.111347   0e+00
 Correlation:
          (Intr)
log(Dose) -0.863

Standardized Within-Group Residuals:
        Min          Q1         Med          Q3         Max
-1.07547728 -0.35579449 -0.03301391  0.45088601  0.91853654

Number of Observations: 14
Number of Groups: 8
                lower      est.     upper
(Intercept) 1.4807366 1.9413858 2.4020350
log(Dose)   0.6664696 0.7617406 0.8570116

Phoenix 6.47.0.768
Model Specification and User Settings
       Dependent variable : logCmax
                Transform : None
              Fixed terms : int+logDose
    Random/repeated terms : Subject
    Denominator df option : satterthwaite

Class variables and their levels
                  Subject :    1   2   4   5   6   7   8   9

Final variance parameter estimates:
             Var(Subject)    0.112045
            Var(Residual)    0.0145635

     REML log(likelihood)   -0.623363
 -2* REML log(likelihood)    1.24673
 Akaike Information Crit.    9.24673
   Schwarz Bayesian Crit.   11.1864

   Effect:Level Estimate   StdError Denom_DF  T_stat  P_value Conf T_crit  Lower_CI  Upper_CI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           int  1.9413858 0.2431407   9.2    7.98462 1.980E-5   90  1.829 1.4967592 2.3860125
logDose:logDose 0.7617406 0.0472798   5.9   16.11135 4.241E-6   90  1.949 0.6695783 0.8539029

Estimates and their SEs are exactly the same. CIs are not (due to different DFs?).

PS: An ideas how to weight by 1/log(Dose) in lme()? Suggested by Chow/Liu and gives me a better fit in Phoenix.
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,987 posts in 4,824 threads, 1,664 registered users;
91 visitors (0 registered, 91 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity
is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.    Voltaire

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5