Update: S×F vari­­ance test [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2014-12-08 18:40 (4217 d 14:29 ago) – Posting: # 14015
Views: 17,061

Hi Angus, Helmut and others,

Either I am not thinking straight (Monday...) or something else but my outcome is not the same as Angus'. Working off the EMA 4-way Fully replicate dataset (yes same Cmax Dataset I) in Winnonlin to get the sub*form interaction variance as per Helmut's previous post in which the final variance parameter lambda(2,2)_11 is the sub*form interaction, I got the following output:

Dependent     Parameter                            Estimate
Ln(Cmax)      lambda(1,1)_11                       0.82840679
Ln(Cmax)      lambda(1,2)_11                       0.85299475
Ln(Cmax)      lambda(2,2)_11                       5.63E-07
Ln(Cmax)      Var(Period*Formulation*Subject)_21   0.11739425
Ln(Cmax)      Var(Period*Formulation*Subject)_22   0.20211805


So the sub*form interaction variance σD2 is 5.63E-07? My σWT2 and σWR2 matched (see my previous post above, close enough). Working backward with the winnonlin σD2=5.63E-07, σI2=0.159756713?

Angus, how did you arrive at σD2 =-0.80391.

My covariance residual from ilat (SAS) was 0.165897781

John
Thread locked

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
402 visitors (0 registered, 402 guests [including 27 identified bots]).
Forum time: 10:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence
than does knowledge.    Charles Darwin

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