There are several questions here. First, the "optimal" design is to have
an equal number in both groups. But this assumes that you have a fixed
total number that you need to divide between the two groups. It is
always better to have more subjects, even if the groups are not balanced
in numbers. Second, it is not "either-or" in terms of matching your
groups and using the GLM. Matching is generally good experimental design
because you don't know that the GLM will always account for differences.
That said, many, many studies use unmatched designs. Third, even if you
have matched subjects, it can be a good idea to include nuisance
variables if they can explain extra variance.
On 7/1/18 11:16 AM, John Absher wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
In group analysis, is it better to have matched controls (1:1) or to
use age, education and other characteristics as confounds in the glm?
In the latter situation, we would control for these demographic
variables in the glm and the control group n could be smaller, the
same or larger than the test group. We are looking at TBI+ and TBI-
subjects across a broad age range to look at patterns of cortical
thinning. Thanks.
*John R. Absher, MD, FAAN*
*GHS Neurosciences*
jabs...@ghs.org <mailto:jabs...@ghs.org>
864-350-6655 (mobile)
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
