lmer vs. lme [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2011-01-28 10:42 (5621 d 10:51 ago) – Posting: # 6505
Views: 72,169

Ahoy d_labes,

❝ But it lacks the separate estimability of the intra-subject error variance for Test and Reference, I think. As far as I know (from the R help lists) there are no plans to introduce somefink like weights in lmer().


Here are two partial outputs from lme and lmer:

With lme:
Log-restricted-likelihood: 98.12818
(...)
Random effects:
  Formula: ~trt - 1 | subj
  Structure: General positive-definite, Log-Cholesky parametrization
          StdDev      Corr
trt1     0.149013060 trt1
trt2     0.122163414 0.15
Residual 0.007643612

With lmer:
AIC    BIC logLik deviance REMLdev
-170.2 -150.0  95.12   -229.3  -190.2
(...)
Random effects:
Groups   Name Variance   Std.Dev.  Corr
subj     trt1 2.2218e-02 0.1490555     
         trt2 1.4913e-02 0.1221188 0.150
Residual      3.3117e-05 0.0057548


Note the slightly better likelihood found by lmer. Changes quite a bit (%-wise, I mean) on the residual sigma.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
123 visitors (1 registered, 122 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:34 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Actually, science starts to become interesting
only where it ends.    Justus von Liebig

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