Skip to main content
. 2014 Oct 7;9(10):e107957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107957

Table 6. Lasso vs elastic-net.

par. obs. stat. p-value
sample size (Inline graphic) 78.683 <0.001
number of features (Inline graphic) 123.014 <0.001
saturation (Inline graphic) 26.688 <0.001
signal-to-noise (Inline graphic) 0.804 0.781
correlation (Inline graphic) 115.291 <0.001
sample size vs number of features (Inline graphic) 6.341 <0.001
sample size vs saturation (Inline graphic) 2.212 <0.001
sample size vs signal-to-noise (Inline graphic) 0.771 0.932
sample size vs correlation (Inline graphic) 1.821 <0.001
number of features vs saturation (Inline graphic) 9.788 <0.001
number of features vs signal-to-noise (Inline graphic) 0.652 0.991
number of features vs correlation (Inline graphic) 6.168 <0.001
saturation vs signal-to-noise (Inline graphic) 0.735 0.971
saturation vs correlation (Inline graphic) 1.233 0.084
signal-to-noise vs correlation (Inline graphic) 0.544 0.999

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 lasso vs elastic-net. Results based on 999 permutations.