PROC GLM fixes Subject [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by kumarnaidu – Mumbai, India, 2016-11-05 06:22 (3522 d 10:08 ago) – Posting: # 16775
Views: 27,563

Hi Mittyri

Thanks for your reply.

❝ Seems to be odd but here Subject is still fixed as ElMaestro wrote. So the experts are right (and ElMaestro too:-D)


Ok that means sub(seq) is a random effect in proc glm. But what about above query from WHO. Also in EMA que and answer guidance they said all effects should be fixed rather than random (method A). Also as you said there is no meaning of random statement in proc glm. EMA Method also dont have such statement. My confusion is that in the protocol can we write that sub, period, sequence, treatment and sub(seq) will be a fixed effects and seq will be tested against sub(seq) if I am going to use Proc glm.

Thanks

Kumar Naidu

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
370 visitors (0 registered, 370 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

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