Variance components – Proc mixed [Software]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2014-02-03 13:58 (4096 d 05:29 ago) – Posting: # 12321
Views: 27,746

Haha, thanks Detlefffff,

❝ Variance parameters are by default in SAS restricted to ≥0 in the maximization of the likelihood.

❝ Reasonable to me :-D.

❝ I get negative variance for subject(sequence) in case of ln(AUCt) only if I use the non-standard NOBOUND option in the Proc MIXED call:

ln(AUCt)

   V(subject(sequence))= -0.00609

   V(residual)         =  0.03329

❝ Seems the same as PHX build 6.3.0.395 / 6.4.0.511 results. See Helmut's post above.


This is mindblowing. I can't say that I understand in any way, but it is clear that the unbounded (=unfiddled, native and pure) optimisation analysis results in the same residual as the all-fixed lm/anova.
The million-dollar question asked in the nastiest fashion:
Do you either

believe in negative variances between subjects

-or-

would you inflate the MSE and get wide confidence intervals?

:-D:-D:-D:-D
An agonising choice indeed.
Another wrong question: Why care about between-Vars in a 2,2,2-BE? Why not just do the anova, fetch the residual, calculate a CI on basis of it and punch any guy who asks about betweens hard in the face?

I wonder how the PK-workgroup at EMA would deal with this.

I can't say I understand any details of the stats but this thread opened my eyes to an issue that I had no idea existed. Thanks.
:pirate:

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
16 visitors (0 registered, 16 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The true Enlightenment thinker, the true rationalist,
never wants to talk anyone into anything.
No, he does not even want to convince;
all the time he is aware that he may be wrong.    Karl R. Popper

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