ArticleBMJ open2023
Prediction of medical sciences students' performance on high-stakes examinations using machine learning models: a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Den-SOFA: Dental Student Outcome Forecasting Assistant using explainable machine learning models.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models as graders of medical short answer questions: a comparative analysis with expert human graders.Medical education online · 2025Article
- Explainable artificial intelligence for predicting medical students' performance in comprehensive assessments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPredicting medical science students' performance on high-stakes examinations has received considerable attention. Machine learning (ML) models are well-known approaches to enhance the accuracy of determining the students' performance. Accordingly, we aim to provide a comprehensive framework and systematic review protocol for applying ML in predicting medical science students' performance on high-stakes examinations. Improving the current understanding of the input and output features, preprocessing methods, setting of ML models and required evaluation metrics seems essential. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted by searching the electronic bibliographic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science. The search will be limited to studies published from January 2013 to June 2023. Studies explicitly predicting student performance in high-stakes examinations and referencing their learning outcomes and use of ML models will be included. Two team members will first screen literature meeting the inclusion criteria at the title, abstract and full-text levels. Second, the Best Evidence Medical Education quality framework rates the included literature. Later, two team members will extract data, including the studies' general data and the ML approach's details. Finally, the information consensus will be reached and submitted for analysis. The synthesised evidence from this review provides helpful information for medical education policy-makers, stakeholders and other researchers in adopting the ML models to evaluate medical science students' performance in high-stakes exams. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review protocol summarises findings of existing publications rather than primary data and does not require an ethics review. The results will be disseminated in publications of peer-reviewed journals.
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.