Slightly off topic, but related :-) [Design Issues]

posted by Shuanghe  – Spain, 2019-12-09 12:00 (496 d 21:40 ago) – Posting: # 20964
Views: 3,722

Hi ElMaestro,

» Note e.g. that the two fits have different residuals and residual df's, which to me means incomplete subjects are not deleted (R does not know and is not being told something is incomplete; the full rank design matrix is still invertible and so on).

What about the following?
X3 <- Xm[-7,]
M3 <- lm(logCmax ~ factor(Seq)+factor(Subj)+factor(Trt)+factor(Per), data=X3)
anova(M3)
lsmeans(M3, "Trt")
confint(pairs(lsmeans(M3, "Trt"), reverse =F), level=0.9)

Xm has missing period (1) for subject 4, X3 has no subject 4. compare anova(M2) and anova(M3), residual and df of residual are same. 90% CI also same. So wouldn't it mean that R deleted the extra period (2) of subject 4 in Xm automatically when doing BE evaluation? Lsmeans are different, so subject 4 period 2 was kept for that calculation. I woulds say that this behaviour is the same as SAS.

All the best,
Shuanghe

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,510 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 10:41 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There is one certainty in drug development
and statistics that one can depend on:
the data are always late.    Scott Patterson and Byron Jones

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