The term "treatment response" is both easy to understand and simultaneously often used when causal language is clearly unwarranted. In this post, I present a non-technical example of when a naïve subgroup analysis leads to the wrong conclusion that a subgroup of patients is treatment non-responders.
In this post I show how to make marginal inferences on the untransformed scaled when using multilevel models with a non-linear transformation applied to the dependent variable (a log-transformation is used as an example). Cluster-specific versus population-average (conditional versus marginal) effects are compared using both average effects on the untransformed scale and using relative (multiplicative) effects.
The next version of powerlmm (0.4.0) will soon be released, besides bug fixes this version also includes several new simulation features. In this post I will show two examples that cover the major new features.
Over the summer I've been working on finishing my new R package 'powerlmm', which is now almost complete. It provides flexible power calculations for typical two- and three-level longitudinal linear mixed models, with unbalanced treatment groups and cluster sizes, as well as with missing data and random slopes at both the subject and cluster-level.
This visualization illustrates the appropriate tests to use when your research hypothesis is that two treatments are equally effective, or that a new treatment is no worse than the current gold standard.