once more about R and replicate designes [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Astea – Russia, 2016-11-03 00:43 (3500 d 18:37 ago) – Posting: # 16767
Views: 23,992

Dear all!

While reading tonns of posts I stil can't understand how do SAS has got such a unique position? The method C for replicate studies (that is random effect with interactions PROC MIXED) in R (not only in bear but also in other packages) doesn't exist, does it?

As I understand only method A is available in bear and only for partial replicate designs 2x2x4, 2x2x6.. But what about fully replicated 2x4x4? VStus (in that post) mentioned that

❝ bear's lm.mod() was not confused by having more than 2 periods and 2 sequences


Also a question appears what should we use as a reference variance in order to apply scaling of confidence intervals (fully replicated design allows us even to estimate intrasubject variability of reference drug for two pairs of R that is we can desintegrate 2x4x4 for two 2x2x4 and estimate R variance independently for both. How will choosing one of them affect the scaling and possibility to fail?)

And the thing that is totally out of my mind: why should point estimation be affected by the way of analysis? As it was once shown by Helmut for balanced studies PE is just a means over periods and sequences. Why can't we do analogous in the case of inbalanced designs?

"Being in minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad"

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
389 visitors (0 registered, 389 guests [including 27 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:21 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I’m all in favor of the democratic principle
that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line
when someone takes the next step and concludes
that two idiots are better than one genius.    Leo Szilard

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