Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Crossover [Design Issues]

posted by Relaxation – Germany, 2023-03-20 09:56 (1182 d 04:51 ago) – Posting: # 23506
Views: 9,046

Hi everybody and sorry for posting this additional question late.
But I cannot get to a clear answer by myself.

Helmut, you stated

❝ What you must not use is the Latin Square ABCD|BCDA|CDAB|DABC. Only from a Williams’ design you can extract balanced pairwise comparisons

I somehow fail to see why the extracted "pairs" are not considered balanced.
They are not balanced for carry-over (which was always the most important reason for Williams), but aren't they for period and sequence?
Is this what you mean here?

I have no idea how to make it fancy, so I will try an ASCII-style

Sequence | Treatments | IBD for A vs B  

1        | ABCD       | AB..

2        | DABC       | .AB.

3        | CDAB       | ..AB

4        | BCDA       | B..A

So A is present once in each sequence and period and the same for B.

Best regards,
Relaxation.

Complete thread:

Definition of Full Replicate Sereng 2023-03-13 17:08
- Definition of Full Replicate Mahmoud 2023-03-13 20:27
  - Definition of Full Replicate Sereng 2023-03-13 23:38
    - Definition of Full Replicate Mahmoud 2023-03-14 08:44
      - Definition of Full Replicate Achievwin 2023-03-27 19:08
        
        Full Replicate with 3 periods mittyri 2023-03-27 22:16
        
        Full Replicate with 3 periods Achievwin 2023-03-28 03:06
        Full Replicate with 3 periods Helmut 2023-03-28 09:03
- Definition of Full Replicate Brus 2023-03-14 10:10
- Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Crossover Helmut 2023-03-14 10:37
  - Thank You! Sereng 2023-03-14 20:08
  - Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order CrossoverRelaxation 2023-03-20 08:56
    - imbalance in Latin Square mittyri 2023-03-27 23:01
    - Balance for all effects Helmut 2023-04-21 10:01

Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Cross­over [Design Issues]

Complete thread:

Replicate Design ≠ Higher-Order Crossover [Design Issues]