In hindsight... [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2011-11-03 22:43 (5349 d 11:47 ago) – Posting: # 7599
Views: 10,762

Hi HS,

2 comments.

1:

ElMaestrosMixedModel <- lme(y1 ~ 0 + seq1 + per1 + trt1, random = ~1|sub1)

I am not sure why ElMaestro used a mixed model here; doesn't this specification just give the same as a linear model with seq1, per1, trt1, and sub1 as fixed factors :confused:?

2:
I think we need to take degrees of freedom into consideration too. After all, the critical value of the t-dist (and thus the width of the CI which is the ultimate indicator) depends heavily on it. I think the df's differ between the two scenarios. I hope this does not lead into a discussion about how df's are calculated for a mixed model (R will not do Satterthwaite etc.), a discussion where I have absolutely nothing to contribute.


I am sorry to question my own sanity.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
366 visitors (0 registered, 366 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Don’t compromise yourself.
You are all you’ve got.    Janis Joplin

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