ArticleScientific reports2026
Beyond peak accuracy: a stability-centric framework for reliable multimodal student engagement assessment.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- MC-MIFA: a causal-aware hybrid state space framework for robust multimodal student engagement analysis.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of student engagement is central to technology-enhanced learning, yet existing models remain constrained by class imbalance, instability across data splits, and limited interpretability. This study introduces a multimodal engagement assessment framework that addresses these issues through three complementary strategies: (1) class-aware loss functions to alleviate class imbalance, (2) temporal data augmentation and heterogeneous ensembling to enhance model stability, and (3) SHAP-based analysis of the most stable component for reliable interpretability. Reliability was established through repeated cross-validation with multiple seeds across seven deep learning architectures and the proposed ensemble. The framework established a mean accuracy of 0.901 ± 0.043 and a mean macro F1 of 0.847 ± 0.068, surpassing baselines such as ResNet (Accuracy = 0.917), Inception (Macro F1 = 0.862), and LightGBM (Accuracy = 0.922). Ablation studies highlighted temporal augmentation and ensemble diversity as key contributors, while sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness with variance consistently below 0.07 across seeds and folds. Efficiency profiling established MCNN and TimeCNN as the optimal deployment architecture, combining near-optimal accuracy with superior computational efficiency. SHAP-based interpretation was extended to provide feature-level and class-wise attribution, revealing consistent relationships between predictions and behavioral or cognitive cues. Overall, the study demonstrates that balanced evaluation and ensemble stability are essential for reliable engagement assessment.
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.