ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning based variance estimation under two phase sampling using health and education sector data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study proposes a novel variance estimator [Formula: see text]under two-phase sampling, utilizing one auxiliary variable and one binary attribute to enhance estimation efficiency. Theoretical properties of the estimator were obtained, such as the formula of bias and Mean Squared Error (MSE), which proves the analytical superiority of the estimator. The empirical efficiency of the simulation was demonstrated by the simulation performance in datasets of the health and education sectors, and the MSE values are consistently lower than those of the classical and competitive estimators. In further supporting its predictive power, machine learning classifiers (Regression Tree, Random Forest, and Support Vector Regression) were also trained on the same auxiliary inputs and evaluated benchmarked on the basis of Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). Although Machine Learning (ML) models demonstrated good predictive power, the estimator used had good interpretability and theoretical foundations. Moreover, the three-parameter Weibull distribution was found to be the most suitable and cut-points were calculated to facilitate stratified interpretation of distributional analysis. In general, the research proves the usefulness of minimal auxiliary information as complemented by structured sampling and hybrid modeling to enhance precision of estimation of variance in applied studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.