PROC GLM fixes Subject [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by kumarnaidu – Mumbai, India, 2016-11-05 06:22 (3498 d 14:49 ago) – Posting: # 16775
Views: 27,362

Hi Mittyri

Thanks for your reply.

❝ Seems to be odd but here Subject is still fixed as ElMaestro wrote. So the experts are right (and ElMaestro too:-D)


Ok that means sub(seq) is a random effect in proc glm. But what about above query from WHO. Also in EMA que and answer guidance they said all effects should be fixed rather than random (method A). Also as you said there is no meaning of random statement in proc glm. EMA Method also dont have such statement. My confusion is that in the protocol can we write that sub, period, sequence, treatment and sub(seq) will be a fixed effects and seq will be tested against sub(seq) if I am going to use Proc glm.

Thanks

Kumar Naidu

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
152 visitors (0 registered, 152 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:12 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