Table 5. Ridge-regression vs elastic-net.
par. | obs. stat. | p-value |
sample size (![]() |
42.231 | <0.001 |
number of features (![]() |
61.468 | <0.001 |
saturation (![]() |
82.652 | <0.001 |
signal-to-noise (![]() |
1.515 | 0.023 |
correlation (![]() |
6.099 | <0.001 |
sample size vs number of features (![]() |
2.335 | <0.001 |
sample size vs saturation (![]() |
6.994 | <0.001 |
sample size vs signal-to-noise (![]() |
1.049 | 0.365 |
sample size vs correlation (![]() |
0.675 | 0.996 |
number of features vs saturation (![]() |
30.782 | <0.001 |
number of features vs signal-to-noise (![]() |
1.239 | 0.075 |
number of features vs correlation (![]() |
1.685 | <0.001 |
saturation vs signal-to-noise (![]() |
1.417 | 0.009 |
saturation vs correlation (![]() |
0.539 | 1.000 |
signal-to-noise vs correlation (![]() |
0.739 | 0.967 |
Permutation tests for equality of the group distributions using distance components analysis (lines 2 to 6), and permutation F-tests for the presence of 2-by-2 interactions (lines 7 to 16), in the comparison of ridge-regression vs elastic-net. Results based on 999 permutations.