ArticleIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
Construction of a Predictive Model for Theory and Practical Performance in '
Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Materials and Methods: Machine learning techniques were applied to develop predictive models using data from undergraduate nursing students who enrolled the 2019 and 2020 cohorts. Demographic and learning behavior variables were collected and divided into training and testing sets (7:3 ratio). Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was used for feature selection, and logistic regression identified independent risk factors. Five algorithms [Logit, RF, XGBoost, Artificial Neural Network, and Support Vector Machine (SVM)] were used to construct models. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), specificity, and sensitivity. Results: Data from 527 students were analyzed; 59 (11.19%) failed the theoretical exam, and 116 (22.01%) failed the practical exam. Predictors for practical exam included height, comprehensive assessment scores, periodic exam scores, comprehensive practical training scores, and practice frequency. Predictors for the theoretical exam included gender, research participation, academic background, height, periodic exam, and practice frequency. SVM showed the best performance for practical exams prediction (AUC = 0.737), while XGB performed best for theoretical exams (AUC = 0.833). No statistically significant differences in AUC were found between most models ( Conclusions: Height, assessment scores, training engagement, exam results, gender, and practice frequency significantly influenced nursing students' academic outcomes. These findings support personalized teaching strategies in foundational nursing education.
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.