Not estimable in the model [BE/BA News]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2017-03-14 13:41 (2156 d 09:26 ago) – Posting: # 17155
Views: 21,647

Hi,

❝ 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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,485 posts in 4,710 threads, 1,603 registered users;
9 visitors (0 registered, 9 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:07 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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