Type III SS in balanced, crossover BE studies? [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2008-10-21 15:09 (5637 d 16:27 ago) – Posting: # 2571
Views: 55,396

❝ So, can 'some regulators' agree with this or are they willing to accept Type I SS in this situation?


Hi,

I am not entirey sure that I understand you. You should ask a regulator, by the way...

You can do type III SS with "drop1", and it will work for unbalanced data so I don't see a problem in any way. You can also do it by fitting models one by one and comparing residuals. In the end it will work out to exactly the same result. I see no reason why you would not do this in your package - please tell me why ("Bear is now only applicable to a balanced, crossover designed BE study"???). And remember, drop1 is good with both glm and lm. You can do type III's via a mixed model, too, using the approach I showed you earlier, and again it will give you valid results for balanced and unbalanced data.

Whenever a study is balanced regulators will / should accept everything, because type I = type III (= type other, too). 99.999% don't care anyway, because they haven't got the faintest clue about statistics, as far as I've heard.

I hope this provided an answer to your question?

Have a nice day.
EM.
Thread locked

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 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:36 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