Let’s forget the Group-by-Treatment interaction, please! [Regulatives / Guidelines]
Hi Hötzi and Mittyri,
this thread is interesting and confusing to me.
May I ask or comment for clarification:
M: "Is it possible to prove that with sims?" - what is it you want to prove? Can you formulate it plain and simple? Sims are totally possible, I just need to figure out the equations, as well as have a purpose.
H: "It should be noted that in rare cases (e.g., extremely unbalanced sequences) the fixed effects model gives no solution and the mixed effects model has to be used." - a realistic linear model will have a single analytical solution unless you make a specification error. Imbalance would not affect that, please describe where/how you came a cross a fit which failed with the lm.
M+H: FDA are also fitting subject as fixed even when using the random statement in PROC GLM. Some of them just have not realised it
H: "(...) seemingly ~⅒ of studies show a significant group-by-treatment interaction. " - this is expected by chance. You apply a 10% significance level. By chance 10% will then be significant.
(and by the way: Which denominator in F did you apply; within or between?)
this thread is interesting and confusing to me.
May I ask or comment for clarification:
M: "Is it possible to prove that with sims?" - what is it you want to prove? Can you formulate it plain and simple? Sims are totally possible, I just need to figure out the equations, as well as have a purpose.

H: "It should be noted that in rare cases (e.g., extremely unbalanced sequences) the fixed effects model gives no solution and the mixed effects model has to be used." - a realistic linear model will have a single analytical solution unless you make a specification error. Imbalance would not affect that, please describe where/how you came a cross a fit which failed with the lm.
M+H: FDA are also fitting subject as fixed even when using the random statement in PROC GLM. Some of them just have not realised it

H: "(...) seemingly ~⅒ of studies show a significant group-by-treatment interaction. " - this is expected by chance. You apply a 10% significance level. By chance 10% will then be significant.
(and by the way: Which denominator in F did you apply; within or between?)
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Complete thread:
- Russian «Экспертами» and their hobby Helmut 2017-04-29 00:46 [Regulatives / Guidelines]
- Low power of Group-by-Treatment interaction mittyri 2017-04-29 22:57
- Let’s forget the Group-by-Treatment interaction, please! Helmut 2017-04-30 13:54
- Let’s forget the Group-by-Treatment interaction, please!ElMaestro 2017-05-01 16:19
- Some answers Helmut 2017-05-02 01:10
- Some answers ElMaestro 2017-05-02 09:04
- Example Helmut 2017-05-02 12:35
- Sensitivity of term? mittyri 2017-05-02 18:29
- Simulations Helmut 2017-05-05 14:38
- loosing specificity due to low sensitivity mittyri 2017-05-08 23:28
- loosing specificity due to low sensitivity Helmut 2017-05-09 00:55
- loosing specificity due to low sensitivity mittyri 2017-05-08 23:28
- Loss in power Helmut 2017-05-06 17:31
- Interval between groups Helmut 2017-05-08 19:02
- IMP handling mittyri 2017-05-08 23:40
- IMP handling Helmut 2017-05-09 01:08
- IMP handling mittyri 2017-05-08 23:40
- Loss in power Helmut 2017-05-14 17:22
- Simulations Helmut 2017-05-05 14:38
- Some answers ElMaestro 2017-05-02 09:04
- No convergence in JMP and Phoenix WinNonlin Helmut 2017-05-25 15:26
- Ouch?!??? ElMaestro 2017-05-25 16:24
- Some answers Helmut 2017-05-02 01:10
- Let’s forget the Group-by-Treatment interaction, please!ElMaestro 2017-05-01 16:19
- Let’s forget the Group-by-Treatment interaction, please! Helmut 2017-04-30 13:54
- Russian «Экспертами» and their hobby Artem Gusev 2017-05-02 16:13
- be careful with mixed models mittyri 2017-05-02 17:53
- be careful with mixed models Artem Gusev 2017-05-03 11:02
- p-value(s) in model 2 Helmut 2017-05-05 14:48
- be careful with mixed models mittyri 2017-05-02 17:53
- Russian «Экспертами» following the EEU GLs Helmut 2017-05-24 20:17
- Russian «Экспертами» following the EEU GLs Beholder 2017-05-24 22:37
- Penalty for carelessness mittyri 2017-05-25 08:52
- Russian «Экспертами» following the EEU GLs Beholder 2017-05-25 10:43
- Russian «Экспертами» following the EEU GLs Mikalai 2018-01-04 10:43
- Belarus = member of the EEU Helmut 2018-01-04 13:08
- Belarus = member of the EEU Mikalai 2018-01-04 19:49
- Trying your model for EEU mittyri 2018-01-04 22:04
- Trying your model for EEU Helmut 2018-01-05 00:06
- help us to stop it, please... Astea 2018-01-10 12:09
- help us to stop it, please... Beholder 2018-01-10 12:49
- regulators convinced by science? d_labes 2018-01-10 15:15
- regulators convinced by science? Beholder 2018-01-10 17:14
- Чёрт побери! d_labes 2018-01-10 18:53
- regulators convinced by science? Astea 2018-01-10 19:10
- regulators convinced by science? Beholder 2018-01-10 17:14
- help us to stop it, please... Astea 2018-01-10 12:09
- Trying your model for EEU Helmut 2018-01-05 00:06
- Belarus = member of the EEU Helmut 2018-01-04 13:08
- Russian «Экспертами» following the EEU GLs Beholder 2017-05-24 22:37
- Low power of Group-by-Treatment interaction mittyri 2017-04-29 22:57