ArticleMedical education2026
A validity evaluation of lexicon-based sentiment analysis of medical students' clinical performance from in-training evaluation reports.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medical students' attitudes toward socioscientific issues in female reproductive anatomy teaching: a cross-sectional study.BMC 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
introductionAssessment of clinical performance has traditionally been a numbers game based upon Likert scale ratings. But, thanks to advances in the science of natural language processing (NLP), it is now possible to incorporate rich narrative data into assessment. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the validity of lexicon-based sentiment analysis of medical students' clinical performance from in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) with a view to fully integrating this as a machine-based process into future assessment decisions.
methodsThis was a mixed methods, retrospective derivation/validation cohort study structured around Kane's validity framework. We used content analysis to create a lexicon of performance descriptors, performed a G-study, and calculated the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for descriptors (scoring). To evaluate generalisation, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient and compared descriptors in derivation and validation cohorts. We then performed [human] lexicon-based sentiment analysis and compared the number of descriptors of different types between cohorts of highest performing students (HPS) and lowest performing students (LPS).
resultsIn our G-study, 86.6% of variance was attributed to the student. The ICC between raters for identification of descriptors was 0.93. The mean number of neutral descriptors was similar between HPS and LPS cohorts, but the number of negative descriptors was higher for LPS (11.4 (10.8) versus 1.4 (1.6) for HPS, p < 0.01, d = 1.37) and the number of positive descriptors was higher for HPS (19 (14) versus 1.4 (1.5) for LPS, p < 0.001, d = 1.86). DISCUSSION: In the midst of their busy clinical work schedule, preceptors find time to tell a story about a medical student and these narrative data enrich the assessment portfolio. Based upon our validity argument, we feel there is a role for lexicon-based sentiment analysis of clinical performance descriptors in ITERs and that these results can contribute meaningfully to assessment decisions.
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.