Scaling of Cmin [Regulatives / Guidelines]
Dear VStus,
it looks like you reduced it too much.
When you reduce period for 2 levels - I think the change makes period to be equal to replication.
Period should still have 4 levels (1 or 2 or 3 or 4). If I am not mistaken.
Edit1: My mistake I don't have a data/reference and I thought the data was from 4 periods. After repeated reading I noticed that there were two periods only with created "repetition" term. I am sorry, I was too fast with replaying and I lacked the quality.
Edit2: If I get it right (I hope so) there is something like this scheme:
When we are interested only in R (per1+seq1 and per2+seq2 are not used at all). So in evaluation of only R data, Period 1 is equal to Sequence 2 (in the term of categorizing data) and Period 2 is equal to Sequence 1, so it's also known from subject No, when the data was obtaind (period 1 or 2). So period doesn't have any new information (the information is provided in other terms).
You may try:
(I'm curious if the results differ against the results with period in.)
Best regards,
zizou
it looks like you reduced it too much.
❝ I have reduced Liu's dataset to have:
❝ subject - 20 levels (1-20)
❝ sequence - 2 levels (RT and TR)
❝ period - 2 levels (1 or 2)
❝ replication - 2 levels (1 or 2)
❝ AUC for Reference formulation.
When you reduce period for 2 levels - I think the change makes period to be equal to replication.
Period should still have 4 levels (1 or 2 or 3 or 4). If I am not mistaken.
Edit1: My mistake I don't have a data/reference and I thought the data was from 4 periods. After repeated reading I noticed that there were two periods only with created "repetition" term. I am sorry, I was too fast with replaying and I lacked the quality.
Edit2: If I get it right (I hope so) there is something like this scheme:
period: 1 2
seq 1: ---TT---RR
seq 2: ---RR---TT
When we are interested only in R (per1+seq1 and per2+seq2 are not used at all). So in evaluation of only R data, Period 1 is equal to Sequence 2 (in the term of categorizing data) and Period 2 is equal to Sequence 1, so it's also known from subject No, when the data was obtaind (period 1 or 2). So period doesn't have any new information (the information is provided in other terms).
You may try:
anova(lm(log(AUC) ~ seq + rep + subj:seq, data=data, na.action=na.exclude))
(I'm curious if the results differ against the results with period in.)
Best regards,
zizou
Complete thread:
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA Compliance 2014-03-13 09:43 [Regulatives / Guidelines]
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA nobody 2014-03-13 09:52
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA fno 2014-03-13 11:16
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA kumarnaidu 2014-11-27 11:02
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA nobody 2014-11-27 11:37
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA kumarnaidu 2014-11-27 12:53
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-11-27 13:47
- Scaling of Cmin kumarnaidu 2014-11-27 15:12
- Scaling of Cmin kumarnaidu 2014-12-05 06:03
- Steady state kumarnaidu 2014-12-10 11:15
- Steady state nobody 2014-12-10 17:04
- Scaling of Cmin Dr_Dan 2014-12-10 17:21
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-12-10 18:40
- Scaling of Cmin d_labes 2014-12-11 13:09
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-12-11 14:53
- Scaling of Cmin VStus 2017-02-03 13:04
- Scaling of Cminzizou 2017-02-03 13:49
- Scaling of Cmin VStus 2017-02-03 15:37
- Scaling of Cmin VStus 2017-02-06 08:55
- Scaling of Cminzizou 2017-02-03 13:49
- Scaling of Cmin VStus 2017-02-03 13:04
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-12-11 14:53
- Scaling of Cmin d_labes 2014-12-11 13:09
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-12-10 18:40
- Steady state kumarnaidu 2014-12-10 11:15
- Scaling of Cmin Helmut 2014-11-27 13:47
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA kumarnaidu 2014-11-27 12:53
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA nobody 2014-11-27 11:37
- Type of study in modified release formulation EMEA kumarnaidu 2014-11-27 11:02