Mean means [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-04-19 02:59 (3715 d 13:23 ago) – Posting: # 14705
Views: 29,423

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ "If it doesn't match SAS then it must be wrong", right?


Didn’t say that. ;-)
If we have a four-period, two-sequence replicate design, balanced, and com­plete data: marginal treatment means = adjusted means (SAS-lingo: LSMs).

❝ I must read up on the c.c. matter when I have got the time. By the way I wonder if "LS Means" have any meaningful interpretation for mixed models when we are not working with least squares minimisation??


Why the heck? IMHO, for this dataset all means should agree, regardless the model – which they do in Vienna (to 15 significant digits; not shown):
                                  R        T
Method A (EMA, subjects fixed)   7.328141 7.391880
Method B (EMA, subjects random)  7.328141 7.391880
Method C (FDA = mixed efects)    7.328141 7.391880
Marginal means (Gnumeric)        7.328141 7.391880

So why do we get…
bear                             7.356274 7.420013
… which are ~3.8% higher for both treatments? No, I’m not satisfied if only the PE agrees – I expect to get a nasty surprise once we start to deal with un­ba­lanced data.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Thread locked

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,677 registered users;
38 visitors (0 registered, 38 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:23 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