average bioequivalence: MLE vs. REML [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Mahmoud  – Jordan, 2023-03-11 13:21 (384 d 00:05 ago) – Posting: # 23493
Views: 1,764

Dear All
In bioequivalence 2x2 (TR,TR) 3x3 ( TRR,RRT,RTR) and 2x4(TRTR,RTRT)
for the statistical anaylsis based code SAS

PROC MIXED;
CLASSES SEQ SUBJ PER TRT; 1077
MODEL Y = SEQ PER TRT/ DDFM=SATTERTH; 1078
RANDOM TRT/TYPE=FA0(2) SUB=SUBJ G; 1079
REPEATED/GRP=TRT SUB=SUBJ; 1080
ESTIMATE 'T vs. R' TRT 1 -1/CL ALPHA=0.1;
run;
By simulation study I found that

MLE method better when number of fixed effects ≤ 4.
REML method better when number of fixed effects > 4.


Edit: Category and subject line changed; see also this post #1[Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
109 visitors (0 registered, 109 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:27 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

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