Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41429885›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Dynamic modeling of PISA achievement scores: comparative analysis of artificial neural networks and differential equation systems approaches.

Bahatdin Daşbaşi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bahatdin DaşbaşiFaculty of Engineering, Architecture and Design, Department of Engineering Basic Sciences, Kayseri University, Kayseri, Türkiye. bdasbasi@kayseri.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8201-7495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, the effects of nine key educational problems in schools on student achievement in mathematics, science, and reading in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were examined using artificial neural networks and differential equation systems. A linear differential equation model was used to describe instantaneous changes over time for twelve variables. Furthermore, the structure in which the nine education-related variables were defined as inputs and the PISA scores as outputs was analyzed through a neural network model with a tangent hyperbolic activation function. Model parameters were estimated using a least-squares curve fitting procedure, and numerical simulations were implemented to evaluate model accuracy. The performance of the models was evaluated using statistical metrics such as root mean square error, sum of squared errors, and the coefficient of determination. Both approaches yielded high accuracy, which is expected given the low variability and aggregated nature of the national-level indicators; however, the neural network model produced slightly lower error levels and a stronger overall fit. Fractional-order differential equation simulations were also explored; however, they did not provide performance improvements relative to the ODE and ANN approaches. In addition, the effects of factors related to problems in education on each PISA score were determined using a neural network-based sensitivity analysis, and the most influential variables were reported. Finally, short-term scenario-based extrapolations of PISA scores for Türkiye were generated using the differential equation model, purely as mathematical extensions of the fitted trends.

Indexed as

Artificial neural networksDifferential equationsEducational modelingPISASensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID41429885
PMCPMC12748620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.