Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Schematic plot of an example binary decision tree with exposures . Note: The predicted values of the leaf nodes are , with the branch splitting rules as , , and .

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Simulation results for 15 exposures and a continuous outcome, with hierarchical variable selection for modified BART and BKMR.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Average PIPs for 15 exposures and a continuous outcome, with both component-wise and hierarchical variable selection for modified BART and BKMR. The true relationship is a non-linear main effect only model , with .

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Average marginal effects for exposures , and , in simulations with 15 exposures and a continuous outcome, using hierarchical variable selection for modified BART with 20 trees and BKMR. The true relationship is a non-linear main effects only model , with . Note: All simulations were replicated 500 times. The reference lines are true effects of each exposure by fixing all other exposures at their quartiles.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Simulation results for 15 exposures and a binary outcome, with hierarchical variable selection for modified probit BART and probit BKMR.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Average PIPs for 15 exposures and a binary outcome, with both component-wise and hierarchical variable selection for modified probit BART and probit BKMR. The true relationship is a non-linear main effect only model , with .

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

Average marginal effects for exposures , and , in simulations with 15 exposures and a binary outcome, using hierarchical variable selection for modified probit BART with 20 trees and probit BKMR. The true relationship is a non-linear main effects only model , with . Note: All simulations were replicated 500 times. The reference lines are true effects of each exposure by fixing all other exposures at their quartiles.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 5.

PIPs for 18 POPs and log-LTL from the NHANES 2001-2002 data, with both component-wise and hierarchical variable selection for modified BART and BKMR.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 4.

Marginal effects of 18 POPs on log-LTL from the NHANES 2001-2002 data, using hierarchical variable selection for modified BART with 20 trees and BKMR.

Note: All chemicals were log-transformed and scaled. The reference lines are partial dependency curves from BKMR by fixing all other exposures at their quartiles.

More »

Fig 4 Expand