Calculation of intra-subject CVs in replicate design [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2008-03-03 13:05 (6691 d 02:44 ago) – Posting: # 1654
Views: 21,610

Hello David,

i agree with your assignment of the intraindividual error terms.

❝ Covariate Parameter Estimates

❝ Cov Parm Subject Group Estimate

❝ FA(1,1) Subject 0.5928 <---- (sig_BT, the between-subject standard

❝ deviation for the Test product)

❝ FA(2,1) Subject 0.4968 <---- (sig_BR, the between-subject standard

❝ deviation for the Reference product)

❝ FA(2,2) Subject 2E-17 <---- (sig_D, the subject-by-formulation

❝ interaction term)


But your assignment of the FA(i,i) terms to the interindividual (co)variances is not correct i think.
Think of the G matrix (using your notation):
   G(1,1) = sig_BT2
   G(2,2) = sig_BR2
   G(1,2) = rho*sig_BT*sig_BR


Futher it is defined (subject-by-formulation interaction variance)
   sig_D2=G(1,1)+G(2,2)-2*G(1,2)
         =sig_BT2+sig_BR2-2*rho*sig_BT*sig_BR

The FA0(2) parameterization of the G-Matrix reads
   G(1,1)=FA(1,1)2
   G(2,2)=FA(2,1)2+FA(2,2)2
   G(1,2)=FA(1,1)*FA(2,1)


Confer to the SAS documentation for this.
By the way: G(1,1) = sig_BT2 is only valid, if your coding of test treatment preceedes that of the reference.

Thus with some algebra you obtain
   FA(1,1)=sig_BT
   FA(2,1)=rho*sig_BR
   FA(2,2)=sqrt(1-rho2)*sig_BR


Thus your assignment of FA(2,1) is only valid if rho=1 which implies FA(2,2)=0.
In that case the subject-by-formulation interaction variance is
  sig_D2=FA(1,1)2+FA(2,1)2-2*FA(1,1)*FA(2,1)

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
216 visitors (0 registered, 216 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:50 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

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