Analysis fixed effect model

The fixed effects model considers the studies that have been combined as the totality of all the studies conducted. An alternative approach considers the collection of studies included in the meta-analysis as a random selection of the studies that have been conducted or a random selection of those that could have been conducted. This results in a slightly changed methodology, termed the random effects model The mathematics for the two models is a little different and the reader is referred to Fleiss (1993), for example, for further details. The net effect, however, of using a random effects model is to produce a slightly more conservative analysis with wider confidence intervals. 

In the panel data models estimated in Example 21.5.1, neither the logit nor the probit model provides a framework for applying a Hausman test to determine whether fixed or random effects is preferred. Explain. (Hint Unlike our application in the linear model, the incidental parameters problem persists here.) Look at the two cases. Neither case has an estimator which is consistent in both cases. In both cases, the unconditional fixed effects effects estimator is inconsistent, so the rest of the analysis falls apart. This is the incidental parameters problem at work. Note that the fixed effects estimator is inconsistent because in both models, the estimator of the constant terms is a function of 1/T. Certainly in both cases, if the fixed effects model is appropriate, then the random effects estimator is inconsistent, whereas if the random effects model is appropriate, the maximum likelihood random effects estimator is both consistent and efficient. Thus, in this instance, the random effects satisfies the requirements of the test. In fact, there does exist a consistent estimator for the logit model with fixed effects - see the text. However, this estimator must be based on a restricted sample observations with the sum of the ys equal to zero or T muust be discarded, so the mechanics of the Hausman test are problematic. This does not fall into the template of computations for the Hausman test. 

In addition it is now time to think about the two assumption models, or types of analysis of variance. ANOVA type 1 assumes that all levels of the factors are included in the analysis and are fixed (fixed effect model). Then the analysis is essentially interested in comparing mean values, i.e. to test the significance of an effect. ANOVA type 2 assumes that the included levels of the factors are selected at random from the distribution of levels (random effect model). Here the final aim is to estimate the variance components, i.e. the variance fractions with respect to total variance caused by the samples taken or the measurements made. In that case one is well advised to ensure balanced designs, i.e. equally occupied cells in the above scheme, because only then is the estimation process straightforward. 

These results were analyzed using both Analysis of Variance and analysis of covariance with the change In temperature during the run, used as the covarlate. Statistically, this Is a fixed-effect model except for the covariate which Is random. Analyses were also carried out on the Individual samples, but the conclusions and residual mean squares were essentially the same as for the samples combined. 

Meta-analysis of association studies between DAOA and schizophrenia under fixed-effects model... 

For example, Bonate (2003) in a PopPK analysis of an unnamed drug performed an influence analysis on 40 subjects from a Phase 1 study. Forty (40) new data sets were generated, each one having a different subject removed. The model was refit to each data set and the results were standardized to the original parameter estimates. Figure 7.18 shows the influence of each subject on four of the fixed effect model parameters. Subject 19 appeared to show influence over clearance, intercompartmental clearance, and peripheral volume. Based on this, the subject was removed from the analysis and original model refit the resultant estimates were considered the final parameter estimates. 

In this experiment, the three DIETs may be the only ones of concern to the experimenter. In this case it is called a fixed-effect model, and the conclusion drawn is applicable only to these specific three options. However, situations may arise in which the experimenter is seeking for a conclusion apphcable to aU possible DIET options and yet he or she can only handle three options. Then, three of the available options should be drawn from aU possible at random. This is called a random-effect model. In addition to the difference in the scope of conclusion, different types of effect models also imply a somewhat different approach of data analysis. In what is to follow, only the fixed-effect model is considered. 

In discussion of meta-analysis, there is often much attention given to the random effects model versus the fixed effects model. Random effects models assume that the true treatment effects of the individual trials represent a random sample from some population. The random effects model estimates the population mean of the treatment effects and accounts for the variation in the observed effects. It is sometimes stated that the fixed effects model assumes that the individual trial effects are constant. However, this is not a necessary assumption. An alternative view is that the fixed effects model estimates the mean of the true treatment effects of the trials in the meta-analysis. Senn (2000) discussed the analogy with center effects in multicenter trials. In safety, random effects models may be problematic because of the need to estimate between-trial effects with sparse data. Additionally, the random effects model is less statistically powerful than the fixed effects model, albeit the hypotheses are different. In the fixed effects model, the variance estimate should account for trial effect differences either through stratification, conditioning, or modeling of fixed effects. 

Pooled estimate of relative risk imder the fixed effect model (Figure 16.2a) found that black patients had a relative risk of angioedema of 3.0 (95% C3 2.5-S.7) compared with nonblack patients. The pooled estimate and the Cl from the random effect model were almost equal to those from the fixed effects model because the P statistics did not suggest noticeable heterogeneity among the studies. Meta-analysis using odds ratio provided similar results as risk ratio because the proportion of patients with angioedema was very low in all studies. 

A fixed-effects model was used to combine information from the studies included in the analysis. 

In a series of reviews [244-246] the models proposed for the assessment of the effect of fillers on the complex of PCM properties are discussed. Analysis of the models shows that, for a fixed filler content, the strength must be higher in compositions with fillers featuring the absolute adhesion to the matrix than in systems with little or no adhesion. The relative elongation and specific impact strength must, on the contrary, go up with the increasing adhesion. 

For the characterization of the selected test area it is necessary to investigate whether there is significant variation of heavy metal levels within this area. Univariate analysis of variance is used analogously to homogeneity characterization of solids [DANZER and MARX, 1979]. Since potential interactions of the effects between rows (horizontal lines) and columns (vertical lines in the raster screen) are unimportant to the problem of local inhomogeneity as a whole, the model with fixed effects is used for the two-way classification with simple filling. The basic equation of the model, the mathematical fundamentals of which are formulated, e.g., in [WEBER, 1986 LOHSE et al., 1986] (see also Sections 2.3 and 3.3.9), is ... 

Assume an experiment in which a group of subjects selected to represent a spectrum of severity of some condition (e.g., renal insufficiency) is given a dose of drug, and drug concentrations are measured in blood samples collected at intervals after dosing. The structural kinetic models used when performing a population analysis do not differ at all from those used for analysis of data from an individual patient. One still needs a model for the relationship of concentration to dose and time, and this relationship does not depend on whether the fixed-effect parameter changes... 

NONMEM is a one-stage analysis that simultaneously estimates mean parameters, fixed-effect parameters, interindividual variability, and residual random effects. The fitting routine makes use of the EES method. A global measure of goodness of fit is provided by the objective function value based on the final parameter estimates, which, in the case of NONMEM, is minus twice the log likelihood of the data (1). Any improvement in the model would be reflected by a decrease in the objective function. The purpose of adding independent variables to the model, such as CLqr in Equation 10.7, is usually to explain kinetic differences between individuals. This means that such differences were not explained by the model prior to adding the variable and were part of random interindividual variability. Therefore, inclusion of additional variables in the model is warranted only if it is accompanied by a decrease in the estimates of the intersubject variance and, under certain circumstances, the intrasubject variance. 

The main statistical issue is the choice between fixed effects and random effects models. Fleiss describes and discusses the two approaches in detail. Peto argues for the former as being assumption-free, as it is based just on the studies being considered at the time of analysis. This assumes that the same true statement effect underlies the apparent effect seen in each trial, study to study variation being due to sampling error. On the other... 

The experimental design selected, as well as the type of factors in the design, dictates the statistical model to be used for data analysis. As mentioned previously, fixed effects influence the mean value of a response, while random effects influence the variance. In this validation, the model has at least one fixed effect of the overall average response and the intermediate precision components are random effects. When a statistical model has both fixed effects and random effects it is called a mixed effects model. 

Accuracy is estimated from the fixed effects components of the model. If the overall mean is the only fixed effect, then accuracy is reported as the estimate of the overall mean accuracy with a 95% confidence interval. As the standard error will be calculated from a variance components estimate including intermediate precision components and repeatability, the degrees of freedom can be calculated using Satterthwaite s approximation (6). The software program SAS has a procedure for mixed model analysis (PROC MIXED) PROC MIXED has an option to use Satterthwaite s degrees of freedom in calculating the confidence interval for the mean accuracy. An example program and output is shown later for the example protocol. 

AUC(0—oo) and Cmax are presented in Table 6.5. Two subjects did not return to the clinic and did not complete the study. Hence, these subjects had only data from Period 1. Natural-log transformed AUC(0—oo) and Cmax were used as the dependent variables. The analysis of variance consisted of sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects. Subjects nested within sequence were treated as a random effect using a random intercept model. The model was fit using REML. Table 6.6 presents the results. The 90% Cl for the ratio of treatment means for both AUC(0—oo) and Cmax were entirely contained within the interval 80-125%. Hence, it was concluded that food had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of the drug. 

On the other hand, it is sometimes seen in the literature that the estimation of the random effects are not of interest, but are treated more as nuisance variables in an analysis. In this case, the analyst is more interested in the fixed effects and their estimation. This view of random effects characterization is rather narrow because in order to precisely estimate the fixed effects in a model, the random effects have to be properly accounted for. Too few random effects in a model leads to biased estimates of the fixed effects, whereas too many random effects lead to overly large standard errors (Altham, 1984). 

One of the most basic questions in any mixed effects model analysis is which parameters should be treated as fixed and which are random. As repeatedly mentioned in the chapter on Linear Mixed Effects Models, an overparameterized random effects matrix can lead to inefficient estimation and poor estimates of the standard errors of the fixed effects, whereas too restrictive a random effects matrix may lead to invalid and biased estimation of the mean response profile (Altham, 1984). In a data rich situation where there are enough observations per subject to obtain individual parameter estimates, i.e., each subject can be fit individually using... 

---