log to 3 decimals guess work [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-05-05 18:00 (5479 d 10:05 ago) – Posting: # 5301
Views: 24,340

Dear Yung-jin,

❝ ❝ BTW: I question your results! Full match of the results with log to full precision or with log rounded to 3 digits (after dec. separator), respectively, in the ANOVA's and the CI's up to the last printed digits has a probability of very near to zero.


❝ Yes, it is possible, but most of time (I think) are unlikely. The transformed from original data, such as Cmax and AUCs, are done under R, not manually. That's why it makes no difference, because both transformations are done by the same machine under R. It could be different when comparing between different machines, such as a 32-bit vs. a 64-bit machine, or between different OS.


Totally confused :confused:.

You have described in your original post that you compared

❝ ... the runs between the pre-transformed

manually Cmax to 3 digits and internally transformed with the model

❝ (lnCmax<- lm(log(Cmax) ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug , data=TotalData))

(emphasis by me)

I guess that you compared the logs calculated to full precision
TotalData$lnCmax <- log(TotalData$Cmax)
lm(lnCmax ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug, data=TotalData)

versus my suggestion
lm(log(Cmax) ~ seq + subj:seq + prd + drug, data=TotalData).

To get Helmut's concern change
TotalData$lnCmax <- round(log(TotalData$Cmax),3)
or even more drastically round to 2 decimals.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
67 visitors (0 registered, 67 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:05 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It’s always fun to have your models validated,
but is way more fun to have them trashed.
Finding out you are completely wrong
is a great part of science.    G. Randall Gladstone

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