Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 15:03 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Not estimable in the model [BE/BA News]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-03-14 12:41  - Posting: # 17155
Views: 12,520

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...

if (3) 4

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,914 posts in 4,036 threads, 1,283 registered users;
online 13 (1 registered, 12 guests [including 6 identified bots]).

Statistics is, or should be, about scientific investigation
and how to do it better, but many statisticians believe
it is a branch of mathematics.    George E.P. Box

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed