Scaling of Cmin [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by zizou – Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2017-02-03 14:49 (2632 d 11:06 ago) – Posting: # 17006
Views: 10,760

(edited by zizou on 2017-02-03 18:47)

Dear VStus,
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:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,656 registered users;
106 visitors (0 registered, 106 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:56 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The whole purpose of education is
to turn mirrors into windows.    Sydney J. Harris

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