Yeah but, no but, yeah but… [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-22 15:37 (218 d 18:01 ago) – Posting: # 21779
Views: 1,706

Hi ElMaestro,

I must confess that I don’t have the slightest idea what you have done here. Not surprising. Hazelnut-sized brain < walnut-sized brain. However:

» I was happy to look up how Chow & Liu see it; see e.g. formula 2.5.1 and 9.1.1 in the 3rd edition
$$Y_{ijk}=\mu+S_{ik}+P_j+F_{(j,k)}+{\color{Red}{C_{(j-1,k)}}}+e_{ijk} \tag{2.5.1=9.1.1}$$Did you implement the first-order carryover as well? If yes, try it without. Might explain the differences below.

» Here's my result with EMA's dataset II, if it is of interest:
»  Var.Component  Ini.value      Value
»          varWR 0.01240137 0.01211072

OK, you start with the EMA’s approach.
library(replicateBE)
CV.wR <- 0.01*method.A(data = rds02, print = FALSE, details = TRUE)[["CVwR(%)"]]
cat("varwR", signif(log(CV.wR^2+1), 7), "\n")
varwR 0.01240137

Anything goes. (© Paul Feyerabend)

With your previous REML-code I got 0.01324648 and following the FDA’s approach (intra-subject contrasts) I got 0.01298984 (in Phoenix, SAS, and by my [image]-code). Hence, I see two problems:
  1. Your result does not match the FDA’s approach. Your previous result is even closer (+2.0%) than the new one (–6.8%).
  2. Even if it would match, how would you code the FDA’s mixed model for ABE in [image]?
    That’s the most important question.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,356 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 08:39 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all 
they are attempting nothing new.    Anthony de Mello

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