ArticlePloS one2026
Calibrated early-warning models with fairness auditing and selective prediction for course withdrawal risk: Evidence from OULAD.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-warning systems (EWS) in learning analytics are increasingly used to identify learners at risk of course withdrawal, but their deployment-critical properties are often under-reported once predicted scores are converted into intervention policies. This study develops a deployment-oriented evaluation protocol for course-withdrawal risk using the Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (OULAD). An early-window feature set was constructed from the first four weeks of learner activity and evaluated under a group-wise train-test split by course presentation. Multiple classifiers were benchmarked, including logistic regression, histogram-based gradient boosting (HGB), random forest, support vector machine, AdaBoost, K-nearest neighbors, XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost. A calibrated HGB model was then retained as the main probabilistic model for downstream analyses of probability reliability, threshold sensitivity, subgroup fairness with bootstrap uncertainty, selective prediction, and capacity-based Top-x% alerting. Several tree-based and boosting models achieved comparable held-out discrimination, while calibrated HGB remained competitive across classification, ranking, and probability-reliability metrics. Threshold choices substantially changed the precision-recall balance, indicating that operating points should be treated as policy choices rather than universal defaults. Fairness audits showed policy-dependent observed group-level differences, especially in alert rates for disability status, although several subgroup error-rate and positive predictive value (PPV) differences remained uncertain. Selective prediction reduced risk on accepted cases as coverage decreased, whereas Top-x% alerting fixed outreach volume and made workload-effectiveness trade-offs explicit. Robustness analyses supported the 28-day window as a practical early-warning compromise and showed that absolute PPV values varied across held-out course-presentation splits. The findings suggest that EWS should be evaluated as policy-linked decision systems, integrating model benchmarking, calibration, fairness uncertainty, and capacity-aware decision rules before deployment.
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.