Less of an issue [Regulatives / Guidelines]
Goede middag d_labes,
This I don't think is an issue at all. Even in spite of the bogus statement, Proc Glm fits the entire model as a fixed effects model, which is good enough for 2-seq 2-per 2-trt data. So even though subject in such a design is treated as fixed, it does not imply that the seq effect cannot be tested using the between subject variabilty in the denominator. This is to the best of my knowledge what the bogus statement allows for and does post-hoc, and this is compliant with the guideline's wording.
EM.
❝ Regarding the fixed effects issue you questioned above in your post:
❝ I can't imagine, what this means at all , especially if I think about the sequence test. Shall we use the error term as the denominator as is in a fully fixed effects model?
❝ We all know that this is the wrong (already Grizzle in his basic paper noticed the right denominator is the subject(sequence) MS).
This I don't think is an issue at all. Even in spite of the bogus statement, Proc Glm fits the entire model as a fixed effects model, which is good enough for 2-seq 2-per 2-trt data. So even though subject in such a design is treated as fixed, it does not imply that the seq effect cannot be tested using the between subject variabilty in the denominator. This is to the best of my knowledge what the bogus statement allows for and does post-hoc, and this is compliant with the guideline's wording.
EM.
Complete thread:
- EMA BE guideline - final version Ohlbe 2010-01-28 18:31 [Regulatives / Guidelines]
- Final version published Helmut 2010-01-29 14:29
- Final version published ElMaestro 2010-01-29 17:02
- Statistix Helmut 2010-01-29 17:30
- Statistix ElMaestro 2010-01-29 18:11
- Calories ;-) Helmut 2010-01-29 19:22
- Calories ;-) ElMaestro 2010-01-29 20:43
- Calories ;-) Helmut 2010-01-29 21:08
- Variable calories d_labes 2010-02-01 12:05
- Calories ;-) ElMaestro 2010-01-29 20:43
- ANOVA only - no doubts Helmut 2010-02-10 23:41
- ANOVA only - no doubts ElMaestro 2010-02-12 21:09
- Statistix Helmut 2010-01-29 17:30
- Final EMA oracle d_labes 2010-02-01 11:53
- Final EMA oracle Helmut 2010-02-01 12:28
- Final EMA oracle ElMaestro 2010-02-01 12:50
- More then two EMA oracles d_labes 2010-02-01 13:30
- Less of an issueElMaestro 2010-02-01 15:29
- Less or More of an issue d_labes 2010-02-01 16:53
- Less or More of an issue ElMaestro 2010-02-01 17:22
- Less or More of an issue d_labes 2010-02-01 16:53
- Effective with 1 Aug 2010 Helmut 2010-02-02 00:55
- Bias? ElMaestro 2010-02-04 11:27
- Less of an issueElMaestro 2010-02-01 15:29
- Final EMA oracle Helmut 2010-02-01 13:43
- Final EMA oracle ElMaestro 2010-02-01 14:54
- Final EMA oracle d_labes 2010-02-01 15:20
- Teaching Helmut 2010-02-01 16:07
- Final EMA oracle d_labes 2010-02-01 15:20
- Final EMA oracle ElMaestro 2010-02-01 14:54
- More then two EMA oracles d_labes 2010-02-01 13:30
- Cmin really gone? tmax reappeared? d_labes 2010-02-01 14:02
- Cmin really gone. tmax reappeared - but how? Helmut 2010-02-01 23:30
- Interpol or not d_labes 2010-02-01 14:52
- Interpol! Helmut 2010-02-02 00:02
- Interpol! ray_be 2010-02-03 18:31
- WinNonlin/Phoenix extrapolation to t=tau Helmut 2010-02-03 20:26
- Interpol! ray_be 2010-02-03 18:31
- Interpol! Helmut 2010-02-02 00:02
- Meta-analysis Helmut 2010-02-07 17:41
- Final version published Panks.79 2010-03-08 07:22
- Cmin for MR-formulations? Helmut 2010-03-08 18:16
- Cmin for MR-formulations? Marcel 2010-04-23 10:09
- MR-Guideline? Helmut 2010-04-23 12:34
- Cmin for MR-formulations? Marcel 2010-04-23 10:09
- Cmin for MR-formulations? Helmut 2010-03-08 18:16
- Final version published ElMaestro 2010-01-29 17:02
- Overview of comments published Helmut 2010-02-10 18:33
- Comments commented d_labes 2010-02-11 08:19
- Definition of Cmin by EMEA Ravi 2010-03-13 12:05
- The EMA’s Cmin & WinNonlin Helmut 2010-03-13 12:52
- Final version published Helmut 2010-01-29 14:29