The use of MIXED models in the analysis of animal experiments with repeated measures data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of data containing repeated observations measured on animals (experimental unit) allocated to different treatments over time is a common design in animal science. Conventionally, repeated measures data were either analyzed as a univariate (split-plot in time) or a multivariate ANOVA (analysis of contrasts), both being handled by the General Linear Model procedure of SAS. In recent times, the mixed model has become more appealing for analyzing repeated data. The objective of this paper is to provide a background understanding of mixed model methodology in a repeated measures analysis and to use balanced steer data from a growth study to illustrate the use of PROC MIXED in the SAS system using five covariance structures. The split-plot in time approach assumes a constant variance and equal correlations (covariance) between repeated measures or compound symmetry, regardless of their proximity in time, and often these assumptions are not true. Recognizing this limitation, the analysis of contrasts was proposed. If there are missing measurements, or some of the data are measured at different times, such data were excluded resulting in inadequate data for a meaningful analysis. The mixed model uses the generalized least squares method, which is generally better than the ordinary least squares used by GLM, if the appropriate covariance structure is adopted. The presence of unequally spaced and/or missing data does not pose a problem for the mixed model. In the example analyzed, the first order ante dependence [ANTE(1)] covariance model had the lowest value for the Akaike and Schwarz’s Bayesian information criteria fit statistics and is therefore the model that provided the best fit to our data. Hence, F values, least square estimates and standard errors based on the ANTE (1) were considered the most appropriate from among the five models demonstrated. It is recommended that the mixed model be used for the analysis of repeated measures designs in animal studies. Key words: Repeated measures, General Linear Model, Mixed Model, split-plot, covariance structure
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".