Fixed Effects Muddleties [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2013-03-05 13:57 (4489 d 16:27 ago) – Posting: # 10154
Views: 11,187

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ But then again why would anyone fit a 2,2,2-BE study with REML. It can be solved pseudo-exactly without an optimizer Al Gore Rhythm. And it involves all effects as fixed, even in the case of PROC GLM + "random".


IMHO you can't talk about inter-subject variance if using an "all effects as fixed" EMAphylistic model. In such a model there is only one error source, the residual error.

If one is interested in inter-subject variance (to what end ever) a mixed model evaluated via real mixed model software is indispensable.

Although it makes no or little difference in case of balanced datasets with no missings. I have played with Helmut's dataset:
               CVinter    CVintra
Proc GLM       9.9912%    49.1476%
Proc Mixed     9.9912%    49.1476%
GLM: s2inter = (MSsub(seq)-MSerror)/2; s2intra = MSerror
Mixed: variance terms directly read from Covariance parameters
CV = sqrt(exp(s2)-1)


BTW: @Helmut - No message / warning whatsoever during fit of the mixed model (subject(sequence) as random effect, all other fixed) with Proc Mixed.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
44 visitors (0 registered, 44 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:25 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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