average bioequivalence: MLE vs. REML [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Mahmoud  – Jordan, 2023-03-11 13:21 (401 d 17:09 ago) – Posting: # 23493
Views: 1,851

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
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,650 registered users;
48 visitors (0 registered, 48 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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