ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of machine learning classification and regression models for prediction of academic performance among postgraduate public health students.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is an artificial intelligence tool that focuses on learning by generating models using established algorithms that represent a given dataset. It can be used as a predictive tool for students' academic performance (AP) at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using academic records of 922 postgraduate students admitted to the High Institute of Public Health, Alexandria University, Egypt, between 2020-2024. Data included 22 features spanning pre-enrollment metrics, academic performance, and demographic traits. Classification algorithms, and regression models were trained on 75% of the dataset, validated via 5-fold cross-validation. Performance metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, AUC for classification, and MAE, RMSE, and R² for regression. Regression models outperformed classification models in AP prediction, with Ensemble (Soft Voting) achieving the highest accuracy (74.25%), lowest MAE (0.3383), and RMSE (0.4316). Among classification models, Random Forest demonstrated superior accuracy (71.43%) and AUC (0.87). Numerical features like the number of failed courses showed the strongest negative correlation with AP (r = -0.37). Key predictors included bachelor's university, major, department, and pre-enrollment CGPA. Feature importance analysis highlighted failed courses as the top determinant, followed by institutional and academic background variables. Regression-based ML models, particularly Ensemble (Soft Voting), proved more effective than classification approaches for predicting nuanced variations in AP. These findings enable institutions to prioritize early interventions for at-risk students, and optimize resource allocation. However, moderate R² values (0.3832) underscore the need to integrate psychosocial and behavioral factors in future 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.