PROC GLM fixes Subject [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by kumarnaidu – Mumbai, India, 2016-11-05 06:22 (3059 d 22:28 ago) – Posting: # 16775
Views: 23,449

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
23,409 posts in 4,921 threads, 1,669 registered users;
13 visitors (0 registered, 13 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:50 CET (Europe/Vienna)

An expert is one who knows more and more
about less and less.    Nicholas Murray Butler

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