Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: Biom J. 2019 Feb 20;61(4):902–917. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201700323

Table 1.

Simulation results for scenarios 1 and 2. The table provides means values and standard deviations (SD) obtained for the summary measures of %Δg = %ΔMTUg, MOT, and NPC. Results are based on 100 duplicated data sets.

Method Scenario 1 Scenario 2
MOT(SD) g (SD) NPC(SD) MOT(SD) g (SD) NPC(SD)
Naive
45.0 0.284 72.7 (8.5) 45.0 0.278 62.7 (10.8)
HC-BPP 6.0 (3.1) 0.932 (0.04) 79.5 (8.1) 9.0 (8.5) 0.867 (0.13) 84.5 (8.3)
KM-BPP 10.0 (7.5) 0.876 (0.11) 76.6 (8.1) 20.0 (10.7) 0.723 (0.17) 80.1 (9.4)
PAM-BPP 15.0 (3.3) 0.802 (0.05) 77.8 (8.3) 23.0 (9.9) 0.669 (0.15) 78.3 (9.8)
HC-BPO 6.0 (2.7) 0.934 (0.03) 79.4 (8.1) 9.0 (6.6) 0.863 (0.12) 74.2 (8.8)
KM-BPO 10.0 (7.5) 0.871 (0.11) 76.6 (8.2) 20.0 (10.2) 0.692 (0.17) 74.1 (7.4)
PAM-BPO 15.0 (3.1) 0.800 (0.05) 77.9 (8.2) 21.0 (9.1) 0.719 (0.14) 73.7 (7.6)
LASSO 44.0 (9.3) 0.462 (0.12) 69.6 (8.3) 47.0 (9.1) 0.466 (0.12) 98.8 (10.0)
Ridge 15.0 (7.1) 0.801 (0.11) 78.0 (7.1) 28.0 (6.0) 0.578 (0.10) 76.1 (6.5)
LassoINT 36.0 (9.4) 0.556 (0.12) 67.1 (8.0) 44.0 (10.9) 0.440 (0.16) 104.5 (9.3)
RidgeINT 17.0 (7.2) 0.790 (0.09) 70.3 (5.1) 36.0 (9.4) 0.434 (0.17) 76.9 (6.4)