Not estimable in the model [BE/BA News]
Hi,
Yes try that with type I. I think type III may give the same as before if you are not using SAS.
Your CI will be the same. Type I vs Type III is generally a topic that is of a much more sensitive nature to some people than e.g.religion or venereal diseases. People who grew up with SAS stick to type III, and type III only, because that is all they know and therefore they seem to be resistant to common sense. Besides, SAS invented the term "Least Squares Means" and that sounds so good that no reasonable alternative could ever exist, right?
Type I is not better or worse than type III. LS Means are no better than model effects. Depending on contrasts, model effects are LS Means and vice versa. And so forth...
❝ Sorry, but I did not catch the idea. Should I try this model: Group+Patient(Sequence)+Sequence+Period+Treatment?
Yes try that with type I. I think type III may give the same as before if you are not using SAS.
❝ One more comment: the groups are unbalanced. Type I is suiatable for balanced groups as I undertood. Looks like I could not use the Type I model.
Your CI will be the same. Type I vs Type III is generally a topic that is of a much more sensitive nature to some people than e.g.religion or venereal diseases. People who grew up with SAS stick to type III, and type III only, because that is all they know and therefore they seem to be resistant to common sense. Besides, SAS invented the term "Least Squares Means" and that sounds so good that no reasonable alternative could ever exist, right?
Type I is not better or worse than type III. LS Means are no better than model effects. Depending on contrasts, model effects are LS Means and vice versa. And so forth...
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Complete thread:
- EMA BE-GL: Clarifications / Corrections? Helmut 2010-06-22 18:53 [BE/BA News]
- Good news!? d_labes 2010-06-23 10:09
- Good news!? Helmut 2010-06-23 10:11
- Update Helmut 2011-02-05 18:48
- Q&A published 14 March 2011 Helmut 2011-03-16 13:44
- Q&A published 14 March 2011 ElMaestro 2011-03-16 14:20
- Phoenix/WinNonlin 6.1.0.173 Helmut 2011-03-17 04:23
- ANOVA party prevails d_labes 2011-03-17 11:00
- THX! Helmut 2011-03-19 02:59
- Outlier d_labes 2011-03-24 11:55
- Outliers - yes, but how? Helmut 2011-03-24 15:09
- Questions and Ambiguities d_labes 2011-03-28 14:16
- Residuals and Outliers in Replicate Design Crossover Studies d_labes 2011-04-04 08:53
- Outliers - yes, but how? Helmut 2011-03-24 15:09
- Info requested ElMag 2011-03-24 12:45
- Confused as well... Helmut 2011-03-24 16:50
- Outlier d_labes 2011-03-24 11:55
- THX! Helmut 2011-03-19 02:59
- Q&A published 14 March 2011 Priyanka_S 2011-03-21 14:28
- SAS code: Warning d_labes 2011-03-21 16:08
- Copy & paste Helmut 2011-03-21 22:38
- Subtleties, flaws, questions d_labes 2011-03-22 09:24
- Subtleties, flaws, questions Helmut 2011-03-27 20:35
- Not estimable in the model The user 2017-03-14 10:16
- Not estimable in the model ElMaestro 2017-03-14 11:02
- Not estimable in the model The user 2017-03-14 12:13
- Not estimable in the modelElMaestro 2017-03-14 12:41
- Not estimable in the model The user 2017-03-14 12:13
- Not estimable in the model Helmut 2017-03-18 21:59
- Food not the same between groups Beholder 2021-11-10 14:35
- Food not the same between groups ElMaestro 2021-11-17 09:50
- Food not the same between groups Beholder 2021-11-10 14:35
- Not estimable in the model ElMaestro 2017-03-14 11:02
- Not estimable in the model The user 2017-03-14 10:16
- Subtleties, flaws, questions Helmut 2011-03-27 20:35
- Subtleties, flaws, questions d_labes 2011-03-22 09:24
- Copy & paste Helmut 2011-03-21 22:38
- SAS code: Warning d_labes 2011-03-21 16:08
- Q&A published 14 March 2011 Helmut 2011-03-16 13:44
- Update Helmut 2011-02-05 18:48
- Good news!? Helmut 2010-06-23 10:11
- Good news!? d_labes 2010-06-23 10:09