ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Automated Evaluation of Reflection and Feedback Quality in Workplace-Based Assessments by Using Natural Language Processing: Cross-Sectional Competency-Based Medical Education Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. 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.
- Dependability of Entrustable Professional Activity Portfolios in Otorhinolaryngology Residency: Nationwide Generalizability and Decision Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Validation of an Entrustable Professional Activities Framework for Respiratory Nurses: A Longitudinal Workplace-Based Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Learning Analytics of a National Entrustable Professional Activities Platform: Cross-Sectional Study of System-Level Constraints on Advanced Entrustment in Competency-Based Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompetency-based medical education relies heavily on high-quality narrative reflections and feedback within workplace-based assessments. However, evaluating these narratives at scale remains a significant challenge.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and apply natural language processing (NLP) models to evaluate the quality of resident reflections and faculty feedback documented in Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) on Taiwan's nationwide Emyway platform for otolaryngology residency training.
methodsThis 4-year cross-sectional study analyzes 300 randomly sampled EPA assessments from 2021 to 2025, covering a pilot year and 3 full implementation years. Two medical education experts independently rated the narratives based on relevance, specificity, and the presence of reflective or improvement-focused language. Narratives were categorized into 4 quality levels-effective, moderate, ineffective, or irrelevant-and then dichotomized into high quality and low quality. We compared the performance of logistic regression, support vector machine, and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) models in classifying narrative quality. The best performing model was then applied to track quality trends over time.
resultsThe BERT model, a multilingual pretrained language model, outperformed other approaches, achieving 85% and 92% accuracy in binary classification for resident reflections and faculty feedback, respectively. The accuracy for the 4-level classification was 67% for both. Longitudinal analysis revealed significant increases in high-quality reflections (from 70.3% to 99.5%) and feedback (from 50.6% to 88.9%) over the study period.
conclusionsBERT-based NLP demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy in evaluating the narrative quality in EPA assessments, especially in the binary classification. While not a replacement for expert review, NLP models offer a valuable tool for monitoring narrative trends and enhancing formative feedback in competency-based medical education.
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.