Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2018-03-24 22:17 CET (UTC+1h)

Parallel bears meeting at random in infinity [R for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes - Berlin, Germany, 2010-04-22 11:43  - Posting: # 5183
Views: 36,431

Dear all, especially dear bears,

since I'm very interested in using R for evaluation of BE studies I had a closer look at the bear code for parallel group studies (code inspection as part of validation :-D).

If I got it right the code used is (f.i. AUC log-transformed):
lme(lnAUC0t ~ drug, random=~1|subj, data=TotalData, method="REML" )
I am wondering where this code comes from, what this code does an why it works anyhow :ponder:.

IMHO this model, one (fixed) effect for the treatment and one (random) effect for the subjects must be over-specified. We have only one value for a distinct subject treated with Test or Reference and thus we are not able to separate this uniquely into 2 effects, one part for treatment and one attributed to the subject.

Nevertheless the lme() call produces a result.
Try it out in bear.

If I follow the strange and crude EMA suggestion and use all effects as fixed
lmModel <- lm(lnAUC0t ~ drug + subj, data=TotalData)
with the bear built-in dataset for parallel groups I get the anticipated result:
lm(formula = lnAUC0t ~ drug + subj, data = TotalData)

ALL 20 residuals are 0: no residual degrees of freedom! (over-specified!)

Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)   7.3199         NA      NA       NA
drug2        -0.0622         NA      NA       NA
subj2        -0.5366         NA      NA       NA
Analysis of Variance Table

Response: lnAUC0t
          Df  Sum Sq  Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
drug       1 0.00127 0.001270               
subj      18 1.17959 0.065533               
Residuals  0 0.00000

BTW: I would go for a parallel groups study with exactly 2 groups with the 'simple' t-test (Welch variant as described by Helmut long ago) :cool:.
Is anybody out there who knows a generalization of the Welch test to more than 2 groups? Any hint would be very appreciated!
Or could we use pairwise Welch t-tests for that?



Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
18,076 Posts in 3,845 Threads, 1,139 registered users;
26 users online (0 registered, 26 guests).

It is better to be wrong than to be vague.
In trial and error, the error is the true essential.    Freeman Dyson

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz