Type III SS again [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by yjlee168 Homepage – Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2009-09-07 20:08 (5763 d 02:35 ago) – Posting: # 4159
Views: 13,205

Dear Elmaestro,

❝ [...] It always will be when the single-term-deletion strategy is followed. This is because the model without Sequence as a factor includes Subjects. The subjects are "nested in sequence" (no pun intended!), so your sequence effect becomes effectively zero* (or to say it differently: you cannot [...]



Because each subject just has one and the only one seq in a crossover study, so subj:seq is just the same as subj. However, it is interesting to find out that R treats the model of (lnAUC ~ seq + prd + trt + subj) and the other model of (lnAUC ~ seq + prd + trt + subj:seq) sightly differently through drop1() function to calculate type III SS that we've already had many discussion when we announce bear at this Forum.

❝ [...] odd stuff for nested data. R does it un critically, SAS does some clever work for you, and therefore the SAS type III output differs from R's drop1 output.


As far as I know, for a balanced 2x2x2 crossover study, the SAS-calculated type III SS should be the same as the type I SS. Both should be the same as those calculated by R's drop1(). You said they're different. Could you explain more? Thanks.

❝ [...] the actual Sequence effect. Although I am not a fan of SAS, I totally agree on this specific issue.


Indeed.

All the best,
-- Yung-jin Lee
bear v2.9.2:- created by Hsin-ya Lee & Yung-jin Lee
Kaohsiung, Taiwan https://www.pkpd168.com/bear
Download link (updated) -> here

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
51 visitors (0 registered, 51 guests [including 38 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:43 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Truth and clarity are complementary.    Niels Bohr

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