Analysis of covariance model

A general analysis-of-covariance model for a stability design with several batches and packages can be expressed as... 

Identification of Analysis of Covariance Model A general procedure, based on regression analysis, to identify the analysis-of-covariance model that applies to a given set of assay results to determine the shelf life is introduced here. We call this procedure the regression model with indicator variables for testing poolability of... 

Rules for Determining Shelf Life Once the analysis-of-covariance model has been identified, a set of rules for computing the shelf life must be implemented. This section describes the rules to follow to determine the expiration dating period for each of the nine representative models described in the previous section [8,11] ... 

TABLE 23 Procedure for Identifying Analysis of Covariance Model... 

The above analysis establishes that there was no significant sex difference, as indicated by the tail probabilities for sex (p = 0.2667) and sexxtreatment interaction (p = 0.9784). There was also some indication that there may have been some treatment effect across the treatment groups in both sexes (p = 0.0559). Examination of the variate means indicated that both sexes seemed to have lower means than their respective controls. The picture was clouded by the fact that there was a similar slightly lower tendency, though not very consistent, in the covariate means as well. Under this circumstance, it is more appropriate to take both the covariate and the variate into any optimal analysis. Table 16.19 shows an analysis of covariance for the factorial model. 

The most popular method for analysis of covariance is the proportional hazards model. This model, originally developed by Cox (1972), is now used extensively in the analysis of survival data to incorporate and adjust for both centre and covariate effects. The model assumes that the hazard ratio for the treatment effect is constant. 

We mentioned earlier, in Section 13.1, that if we did not have censoring then an analysis would probably proceed by taking the log of survival time and undertaking the unpaired t-test. The above model simply develops that idea by now incorporating covariates etc. through a standard analysis of covariance. If we assume that InT is also normally distributed then the coefficient c represents the (adjusted) difference in the mean (or median) survival times on the log scale. Note that for the normal distribution, the mean and the median are the same it is more convenient to think in terms of medians. To return to the original scale for survival time we then anti-log c, e, and this quantity is the ratio (active divided by control) of the median survival times. Confidence intervals can be obtained in a straightforward way for this ratio. 

The analysis of covariance between a continuous variable (P is the curve shape parameter from the Weibull function) and a discrete variable (process) was determined using the general linear model (GLM) procedure from the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). The technique of the heterogeneity of slopes showed that there was no significant difference (Tables 5 and 6). 

In analysis of covariance the influence of the covariable(s) is basically corrected for by means of a regression model with the covariable(s) as the independent variable(s). Hence analysis of covariance appears as a combination of both regression analysis and analysis of variance. 

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. 

In addition, the pairs of trays were classified in six groups according to their sealing rank, I to VI (Figure 4B and C), and the sealing rank was handled as a covariate in the analysis-of-variance model. No interaction terms between the main factors or between the covariate and the main factors were defined in the model. 

McDonald RP, A simple comprehensive model for the analysis of covariance structures some remarks on applications, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1980, 33, 161-183. 

Table 6.7 Summary of linear mixed effect model analysis to tumor growth data using a repeated measures analysis of covariance treating time as a categorical variable.

The vast majority of quantitative research designs utilize statistics [2]. Hence, it is critical to select appropriate statistical models (e.g., linear regression, analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, Student s f-test, or others) that complement the experimental design [9-14]. Let us now briefly address the types of statistical models available, both parametric and nonparametric. 

In regression models, the independent variables are usually quantitative or continuous variables. When the independent variables consist of all qualitative (grouped or categorical) variables, the model is the ANOVA model. When the independent variables consist of both qualitative variables and quantitative variables, the model is the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The next section illustrates the ANOVA model. 

To demonstrate that this was not the case, the shaded trays shown in Figure 4A were sampled and for each tray 3x2 vials were assayed for protein content. The protein content results were analyzed with a two-cell analysis-of-variance model including a factor, the left/right positioning, and a covariate, the shelf number. In order to increase the power of the statistical testing, the shelf number was handled as a covariate and not as a factor, based on the assumption that the filling was progressing at a constant rate. 

In order to assess the impact of contextual control variables on the endogenous constructs, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for each dependent variable (customer orientation, domain-specific innovativeness, opinion leadership) and each model (with and without empathy as predictor variable), which results in six different analyses. All assumptions for conducting ANCOVAs were met (Keselman et al. 1998 Owen and Froman 1998). The models included the original, hypothesized relationships (covarlates) and control variables for firm and department affiliation (fixed factors 3 firms, 5 department groups (product management, sales, marketing, R D, other)). Only direct effects were modeled. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 20. 

Data were analyzed by analysis of covariance, with initial weight as the covariate. The MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 1996) was employed the model account for the fixed effects of dietary energy concentration, energy intake and their interaction and the random effects of block and pen. 

An analysis of covariance was also computed, introducing each of the lead parameters into the model separately. 

Platt RW, Joseph KS, Ananth CV, Grondines J, Abrahamowicz M, Kramer MS (2004) A proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates and time-varying effects for analysis of fetal and infant death. Am J Epidemiol, 160(3) 199-206. 

Realistic predichons of study results based on simulations can be made only with realistic simulation models. Three types of models are necessary to mimic real study observations system (drug-disease) models, covariate distribution models, and study execution models. Often, these models can be developed from previous data sets or obtained from literature on compounds with similar indications or mechanisms of action. To closely mimic the case of intended studies for which simulations are performed, the values of the model parameters (both structural and statistical elements) and the design used in the simulation of a proposed trial may be different from those that were originally derived from an analysis of previous data or other literature. Therefore, before using models, their appropriateness as simulation tools must be evaluated to ensure that they capture observed data reasonably well [19-21]. However, in some circumstances, it is not feasible to develop simulation models from prior data or by extrapolation from similar dmgs. In these circumstances, what-if scenarios or sensitivity analyses can be performed to evaluate the impact of the model uncertainty and the study design on the trial outcome [22, 23]. 

The Trial Simulator (Pharsight Corp., http //www.pharsight.com) is a comprehensive and powerful tool for the simulation of clinical trials. Population PK/PD models developed with tools mentioned in Section 17.10.3 can be implemented in a Trial Simulator. In addition, treatment protocols, inclusion criteria, and observations can be specified. Also covariate distribution models, compliance models, and drop-out models can be specified. All of these models can be implemented via a graphical user interface. For the analysis of simulation results a special version of S-Plus is implemented and results can also be exported in different formats, like SAS. 

It first introduces the reader to the fundamentals of experimental design. Systems theory, response surface concepts, and basic statistics serve as a basis for the further development of matrix least squares and hypothesis testing. The effects of different experimental designs and different models on the variance-covariance matrix and on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) are extensively discussed. Applications and advanced topics such as confidence bands, rotatability, and confounding complete the text. Numerous worked examples are presented. 

Response Surfaces. 3. Basic Statistics. 4. One Experiment. 5. Two Experiments. 6. Hypothesis Testing. 7. The Variance-Covariance Matrix. 8. Three Experiments. 9. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Linear Models. 10. A Ten-Experiment Example. 11. Approximating a Region of a Multifactor Response Surface. 12. Additional Multifactor Concepts and Experimental Designs. Append- ices Matrix Algebra. Critical Values of t. Critical Values of F, a = 0.05. Index. 

---