lm() or lme() for 2x2x2 study design? [Software]

posted by yjlee168 Homepage – Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2014-02-03 21:22 (4504 d 00:19 ago) – Posting: # 12326
Views: 32,508

(edited on 2014-02-03 21:55)

Dear Detlew and all,

Thanks for your messages. Great discussions.

❝ ...

❝ There is also a formula giving the probability for obtaining a negative estimate, which is (was?) available in bear, I think.


Do you mean VarCorr() in lme()? yes, but I didn't use it any more. The question is that in bear we use lm() first, and get the negative variance. Then we can switch to use lme(..., method="REML") to re-do it for that negative variance (i.e., when CVinter is NaN, if(is.nan(CVinter){do lme()}). Why do we need to know the probability for obtaining a negative estimate? BTW, should we consider to use lme() instead if lm() for all 2x2x2 BE study since there seems no regulatory consideration? That really can avoid negative variances, though it happens occasionally.

All the best,
-- Yung-jin Lee
bear v2.9.6:- created by Hsin-ya Lee & Yung-jin Lee
Kaohsiung, Taiwan https://www.pkpd168.com/bear
Download link (updated) -> here

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
443 visitors (0 registered, 443 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:41 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I’m all in favor of the democratic principle
that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line
when someone takes the next step and concludes
that two idiots are better than one genius.    Leo Szilard

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