RE: BOV

From: Kenneth Kowalski Date: September 23, 2004 technical Source: cognigencorp.com
From: "Kowalski, Ken" Subject: RE: [NMusers] BOV Date: Thu, September 23, 2004 12:46 pm Hi Diane, My experience and intuition (we know it can be faulty so take it for what its worth :-)) and experience says that misspecification of the variance structure often has little impact on the accuracy of the theta estimates. However, misspecification of the variance structures could impact the precision of our estimates and hence could lead to statistical tests (e.g., likelihood ratio tests) that don't preserve nominal type I errors. I agree with Mats that correlation in the residuals over time (autocorrelation) is probably the more important time effect to be concerned about in this regard. As you know I'm a proponent of building full models whether they be fixed or random effect parameters. With respect to the omega structure I tend to build the largest structure that is supported by the data. I don't worry about being parsimonious in omega unless over-parameterization/ill-conditioning dictates it. Thus, following that same strategy for BOV estimation I certainly plan to start looking at estimating the individual BOVj. I agree that in many cases it may be parsimonious to constrain BOVj=BOV (BLOCK SAME) but as Mats has pointed out one might see differences in BOVj when some occasions are spaced further apart. For example, if two occasions are spaced close together but a third is much more distant in time, a parsimonious model may be to constrain BOV1=BOV2=BOV and estimate a different BOV3 for the third occasion. However, in this setting I'm inclined to just estimate a separate BOVj for the three occasions as long as the data support it (i.e., the model is not ill-conditioned). I don't get hung up on formal testing of the variance structure and primarily rely on patterns in the omega structure (even for failed full block omega runs) to help guide my choice of a parsimonious omega when needed. I realize that a lot of attention to omega may not be warranted when the main interest is in a population mean prediction (say for dose selection) but I've found that I never know when I might use a previously developed model for other purposes such as clinical trial simulations where greater attention to omega (including BOV estimation) might be warranted. Ken
Sep 20, 2004 Renee Ying Hong BOV
Sep 20, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 20, 2004 Pravin RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Pravin RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 21, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Fabrice Nollevaux RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Yaning Wang RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Michael Fossler RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Yaning Wang RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Liang Zhao RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Liang Zhao RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Michael Fossler RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Liang Zhao RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Qi Liu RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Liang Zhao RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Yaning Wang RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Qi Liu RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 22, 2004 Yaning Wang RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Diane Mould RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Liang Zhao RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Nick Holford RE: BOV
Sep 23, 2004 Mats Karlsson RE: BOV
Sep 24, 2004 Kenneth Kowalski RE: BOV
Sep 24, 2004 Immanuel Freedman RE: BOV