Variance components – Proc mixed [Software]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2014-02-03 13:58 (4096 d 16:09 ago) – Posting: # 12321
Views: 27,749

Haha, thanks Detlefffff,

❝ Variance parameters are by default in SAS restricted to ≥0 in the maximization of the likelihood.

❝ Reasonable to me :-D.

❝ I get negative variance for subject(sequence) in case of ln(AUCt) only if I use the non-standard NOBOUND option in the Proc MIXED call:

ln(AUCt)

   V(subject(sequence))= -0.00609

   V(residual)         =  0.03329

❝ Seems the same as PHX build 6.3.0.395 / 6.4.0.511 results. See Helmut's post above.


This is mindblowing. I can't say that I understand in any way, but it is clear that the unbounded (=unfiddled, native and pure) optimisation analysis results in the same residual as the all-fixed lm/anova.
The million-dollar question asked in the nastiest fashion:
Do you either

believe in negative variances between subjects

-or-

would you inflate the MSE and get wide confidence intervals?

:-D:-D:-D:-D
An agonising choice indeed.
Another wrong question: Why care about between-Vars in a 2,2,2-BE? Why not just do the anova, fetch the residual, calculate a CI on basis of it and punch any guy who asks about betweens hard in the face?

I wonder how the PK-workgroup at EMA would deal with this.

I can't say I understand any details of the stats but this thread opened my eyes to an issue that I had no idea existed. Thanks.
:pirate:

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
25 visitors (0 registered, 25 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:07 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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