ArticleScientific reports2026
An efficient logarithmic estimator in stratified random sampling using single auxiliary variable.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel logarithmic-type estimator for the estimation of the population mean under stratified random sampling when a single auxiliary variable is available. By employing a logarithmic transformation, the suggested estimator more effectively exploits auxiliary information, leading to improved estimation accuracy. Analytical expressions for the bias and precision of the estimator are derived, and theoretical conditions are established under which the proposed estimator dominates several existing estimators. The empirical performance is assessed using three real-life datasets, along with a simulation study based on three artificial populations of size 1000 generated from a normal distribution. Samples of sizes n = 50, 100, and 150 are drawn to evaluate estimator behavior under varying sampling intensities. The findings consistently show that the proposed estimator attains higher percentage relative efficiency and superior precision compared to competing estimators across both real and simulated datasets. These results demonstrate that the estimator offers substantial gains in survey accuracy, particularly when a strong association exists between the study and auxiliary variables.
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.