Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-12-12 22:50 CET (UTC+1h)
 

Not estimable in the model [BE/BA News]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-03-14 12:41  - Posting: # 17155
Views: 2,862

Hi,

» Sorry, but I did not catch the idea. Should I try this model: Group+Patient(Sequence)+Sequence+Period+Treatment?

Yes try that with type I. I think type III may give the same as before if you are not using SAS.


» One more comment: the groups are unbalanced. Type I is suiatable for balanced groups as I undertood. Looks like I could not use the Type I model.

Your CI will be the same. Type I vs Type III is generally a topic that is of a much more sensitive nature to some people than e.g.religion or venereal diseases. People who grew up with SAS stick to type III, and type III only, because that is all they know and therefore they seem to be resistant to common sense. Besides, SAS invented the term "Least Squares Means" and that sounds so good that no reasonable alternative could ever exist, right?

Type I is not better or worse than type III. LS Means are no better than model effects. Depending on contrasts, model effects are LS Means and vice versa. And so forth...

I could be wrong, but…


Best regards,
ElMaestro

A potentially biased estimator may be a relevant estimator. The case of REML speaks volumes.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,555 Posts in 3,758 Threads, 1,089 registered users;
34 users online (0 registered, 34 guests).

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage
for which he himself was responsible.
Nonage is the inability to use one’s own intellect
without the direction of another.    Immanuel Kant

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed