log to 3 decimals guess work [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-05-05 18:00 (5879 d 10:38 ago) – Posting: # 5301
Views: 29,984

Dear Yung-jin,

❝ ❝ BTW: I question your results! Full match of the results with log to full precision or with log rounded to 3 digits (after dec. separator), respectively, in the ANOVA's and the CI's up to the last printed digits has a probability of very near to zero.


❝ Yes, it is possible, but most of time (I think) are unlikely. The transformed from original data, such as Cmax and AUCs, are done under R, not manually. That's why it makes no difference, because both transformations are done by the same machine under R. It could be different when comparing between different machines, such as a 32-bit vs. a 64-bit machine, or between different OS.


Totally confused :confused:.

You have described in your original post that you compared

❝ ... the runs between the pre-transformed

manually Cmax to 3 digits and internally transformed with the model

❝ (lnCmax<- lm(log(Cmax) ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug , data=TotalData))

(emphasis by me)

I guess that you compared the logs calculated to full precision
TotalData$lnCmax <- log(TotalData$Cmax)
lm(lnCmax ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug, data=TotalData)

versus my suggestion
lm(log(Cmax) ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug, data=TotalData).

To get Helmut's concern change
TotalData$lnCmax <- round(log(TotalData$Cmax),3)
or even more drastically round to 2 decimals.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
126 visitors (0 registered, 126 guests [including 22 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.    Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

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