ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Towards accurate and interpretable competency-based assessment: enhancing clinical competency assessment through multimodal AI and anomaly detection.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Psychological capital matters: a methodological proof-of-concept for dual-dimensional student competitiveness assessment.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping medical education, particularly in the domain of competency-based assessment, where current methods remain subjective and resource-intensive. We introduce a multimodal AI framework that integrates video, audio, and patient monitor data to provide objective and interpretable competency assessments. Using 90 anesthesia residents, we established "ideal" performance benchmarks and trained an anomaly detection model (MEMTO) to quantify deviations from these benchmarks. Competency scores derived from these deviations showed strong alignment with expert ratings (Spearman's ρ = 0.78; ICC = 0.75) and demonstrated high ranking precision (Relative L
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.