Yes, but... [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-04-10 16:46 (5910 d 18:17 ago) – Posting: # 5076
Views: 10,515

Ahoi!

❝ Just re-read your post - you are suggesting exactly the same if I interpret your post right?


Yes. After RTFM and setting up the model with a study × period interaction term, I'm getting exactly the same results as with faked four periods.

There are only minor differences between the 'faked 4 period' and interaction set-ups, probably due to numerical issues. More significant digits below:
Faked Periods:  95.1926% (91.1103% - 99.4578%), CVintra 9.02706%
Period × Study: 95.1915% (91.1007% - 99.4660%), CVintra 9.04355%


Apart from the technical issues, my main concern remains alpha in the combined analysis.
:ponder:

Though a sailor and a scuba-instructor supposedly are familiar with murcky waters, I guess we would need some statistical consultancy here.

Wist het anker! :pirate:

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
145 visitors (0 registered, 145 guests [including 18 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:03 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Always listen to experts.
They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why.
Then do it.    Robert A. Heinlein

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