Fixed Effects Muddleties [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2013-03-05 13:57 (4431 d 03:51 ago) – Posting: # 10154
Views: 10,905

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, 1,670 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:49 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The true Enlightenment thinker, the true rationalist,
never wants to talk anyone into anything.
No, he does not even want to convince;
all the time he is aware that he may be wrong.    Karl R. Popper

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