PROC GLM fixes Subject [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2016-11-05 11:13 (2721 d 21:34 ago) – Posting: # 16776
Views: 19,541

Hi Kumar,

❝ Ok that means sub(seq) is a random effect in proc glm.


Nope! Subject is still fixed, because you are using PROC GLM.
Please see the guide:
Note:PROC GLM uses only the information pertaining to expected mean squares when you specify the TEST option in the RANDOM statement and, even then, only in the extra tests produced by the RANDOM statement. Other features in the GLM procedure—including the results of the LSMEANS and ESTIMATE statements—assume that all effects are fixed, so that all tests and estimability checks for these statements are based on a fixed-effects model, even when you use a RANDOM statement.

❝ But what about above query from WHO.


They just want to see unambiguity in your statement.

❝ Also in EMA que and answer guidance they said all effects should be fixed rather than random (method A). Also as you said there is no meaning of random statement in proc glm. EMA Method also dont have such statement.


Are you working with Replicate study? The things are different there

❝ My confusion is that in the protocol can we write that sub, period, sequence, treatment and sub(seq) will be a fixed effects and seq will be tested against sub(seq) if I am going to use Proc glm.


I think you can provide the SAS code above, so all experts will understand that all effects are still fixed, and the reason of random part there is just an F test.

Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,987 posts in 4,824 threads, 1,663 registered users;
89 visitors (0 registered, 89 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:47 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