[R] Differences in output of lme() when introducing interactions

[Rolf Turner]

On 24/07/15 07:07, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. wrote:
> The following are in parody (but like all good parody correct wrt the
> salient features). The musings of
> Guernsey McPhearson
>     http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/wprose.html#Mixed
>     http://www.senns.demon.co.uk/wprose.html#FDA
>
>
> In formal publication:
>   Senn, Statistical Issues in Drug Development, second edition, Chapter
> 14: Multicentre Trials
>   Senn, The many modes of meta, Drug information journal, 34:535-549, 2000.
>
> The second points out that in a meta analysis no one would ever consider
> giving both large and small trials equal weights, and relates that to
> several other bits of standard practice.  The 'equal weights' notion
> embedded in a fixed effects model + SAS type 3 is an isolated backwater.
>
> Terry T.
>
> PS. The "Devils' Drug Development Dictionary" at the same source has
> some gems. Three rather random choices:
>
> Bayesian - One who, vaguely expecting a horse and catching a glimpse of
> a donkey, strongly concludes he has seen a mule.
>
> Medical Statistician - One who won't accept that Columbus discovered
> America because he said he was looking for India in the trial Plan.
>
> Trend Towards Significance - An ever present help in times of trouble.
>
>
>
> On 07/22/2015 06:02 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>> On 23/07/15 01:15, Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> 3. Should you ever use it [i.e. Type III SS]?  No.  There is a very
>>> strong inverse
>>> correlation between "understand what it really is" and "recommend its
>>> use".   Stephen Senn has written very intellgently on the issues.
>>
>> Terry --- can you please supply an explicit citation?  Ta.

Thanks Terry!

cheers,

Rolf

-- 
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276