Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison the LASSO and Ridge regression methods with Elastic Net regression

From: A 19-Gene expression signature as a predictor of survival in colorectal cancer

  Univariate Multivariate
  HR (95 % CI) P HR (95 % CI) P
Datasets Methods     
Lasso 0.106 (0.030 – 0.370) 0.000 0.063 (0.016 – 0.252) 0.000
Our dataset Ridge 0.812 (0.303 – 2.173) 0.000 0.083 (0.022 – 0.321) 0.000
Elastic net 0.065 (0.014 – 0.287) 0.000 0.040 (0.008 – 0.198) 0.000
Denmark dataset Lasso 0.055 (0.007 – 0.453) 0.007 0.044 (0.005 – 0.396) 0.005
Ridge 0.112 (0.024 – 0.519) 0.005 0.080 (0.014 – 0.467) 0.005
Elastic net 0.057 (0.007 – 0.464) 0.007 0.038 (0.004 – 0.389) 0.005
Australian dataset Lasso 0.565 (0.396 – 0.805) 0.002 0.549 (0.384 – 0.784) 0.001
Ridge 0.447 (0.312 – 0.641) 0.000 0.454 (0.316 – 0.651) 0.000
Elastic net 0.523 (0.370 – 0.739) 0.000 0.529 (0.373 – 0.748) 0.000
USA dataset Lasso 0.105 (0.010 – 1.068) 0.056 0.104 (0.010 – 1.052) 0.055
Ridge 0.130 (0.013 – 1.294) 0.082 0.129 (0.013 – 1.283) 0.081
Elastic net 0.120 (0. 012 – 1.195) 0.071 0. 122 (0. 012 – 1.214) 0. 072
Norway dataset Lasso --- --- --- ---
Ridge --- --- --- ---
Elastic net 0.536 (0.300 – 0.957) 0.035 0.569 (0.318 – 1.018) 0.057
  1. This table shows the comparison with the LASSO, Ridge regression and Elastic Net methods for 19 gene signatures based on our dataset and other external datasets from different countries. Univariate and multivariate Cox’s proportional hazard model analysis of prognostic factor (prognostic index or risk score) for overall survival
  2. [Relevant location: Page 16]