Log in
RegisterBetween vs Within [General Statistics]
Hi Helmut & BEQool,
I really doubt that. In the article* referred there's a claim:
For the second and third comparisons, models 1 and 2 were used. Sex-by-formulation interactions were expressed by comparing the ratio of the test and reference geometric means for women with that for men. For sex-by-formulation interactions, observed ratio differences of greater than or equal to ±20 percentage points or statistically significant differences at P < .05 were used to identify interactions of interest.
It appears that the authors used the Residual Mean Squares (MS) as the denominator for the F-tests, rather than the Subject MS. This choice is not explicitly stated but seems likely based on the overall approach. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the interaction term Group*Formulation should also be tested against the Residual MS, not the Subject MS.
❝ anova1 <- anova(model1)
❝ num <- as.numeric(anova1["group:treatment", c(3, 1)])
❝ denom <- as.numeric(anova1["group:sequence:subject", c(3, 1)])
I really doubt that. In the article* referred there's a claim:
For the second and third comparisons, models 1 and 2 were used. Sex-by-formulation interactions were expressed by comparing the ratio of the test and reference geometric means for women with that for men. For sex-by-formulation interactions, observed ratio differences of greater than or equal to ±20 percentage points or statistically significant differences at P < .05 were used to identify interactions of interest.
It appears that the authors used the Residual Mean Squares (MS) as the denominator for the F-tests, rather than the Subject MS. This choice is not explicitly stated but seems likely based on the overall approach. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the interaction term Group*Formulation should also be tested against the Residual MS, not the Subject MS.
- Chen M-L, Lee S-C, Ng M-J, Schuirmann DJ, Lesko LJ, Williams RL. Pharmacokinetic analysis of bioequivalence trials: Implications for sex-related issues in clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics. Clin Pharm Ther. 2000; 68(5): 510–21. doi:10.1067/mcp.2000.111184
—
Kind regards,
Mittyri
Kind regards,
Mittyri
Complete thread:
- Group-by-Treatment Interaction: the final word? Helmut 2024-04-19 01:26 [General Statistics]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- Group-by-Treatment Interaction: FDA Helmut 2024-09-20 13:30
- Group-by-Treatment Interaction: Rejoinder Helmut 2024-12-17 10:26
- Group-by-Treatment Interaction: the final word? BEQool 2024-10-03 15:09
- ANOVA of Model 1 Helmut 2024-10-03 15:33
- ANOVA of Model 1 BEQool 2024-10-03 16:08
- ANOVA of Model 1 Helmut 2024-10-04 10:11
- Between vs Withinmittyri 2024-10-05 00:08
- Between vs Within BEQool 2024-10-06 20:06
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? mittyri 2024-10-06 22:00
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? BEQool 2024-10-07 10:27
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? mittyri 2024-10-07 13:11
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? BEQool 2024-10-14 11:01
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? mittyri 2024-10-07 13:11
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? BEQool 2024-10-07 10:27
- Treatment-by-Group in PROC MIXED and PROC GLM? mittyri 2024-10-06 22:00
- Between vs Within BEQool 2024-10-06 20:06
- Between vs Withinmittyri 2024-10-05 00:08
- ANOVA of Model 1 Helmut 2024-10-04 10:11
- ANOVA of Model 1 BEQool 2024-10-03 16:08
- ANOVA of Model 1 Helmut 2024-10-03 15:33
- Group-by-Treatment Interaction: FDA Helmut 2024-09-20 13:30
Ing. Helmut Schütz