ArticleF1000Research2025
Machine learning algorithms to predict digital skills in university teaching staff.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. 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: The digital transformation of higher education has intensified the need to assess and enhance the digital competencies of university faculty. This study analyzed the effectiveness of various machine learning algorithms in predicting levels of faculty digital competence based on socio-educational variables. The objective was to develop an advanced predictive model, applied to faculty members from the State University of Milagro and the Technical University of Manabí. Methods: A quantitative approach was adopted, with a cross-sectional correlational design. Digital competencies were measured using the internationally validated DigCompEdu Check-In instrument, structured across six core dimensions. In the predictive phase, nine supervised machine learning algorithms were trained and evaluated: logistic regression, decision trees, random forest, gradient boosting, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machines, stochastic gradient descent, artificial neural networks, and Naive Bayes. The models were trained using a dataset comprising 5,148 observations, and their performance was assessed using standard classification metrics: area under the ROC curve (AUC), accuracy, F1-score, sensitivity, and Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC). Results: Gradient boosting, random forest, and neural network models demonstrated superior predictive performance, particularly at advanced competence levels (B2 and C1). Significant associations were identified between academic level, age, gender, and digital competencies. Logistic regression and Naive Bayes showed limitations in identifying low competence levels (A1), while intermediate levels were often overestimated across several models. Conclusions: The findings confirm that machine learning algorithms can accurately predict university faculty digital competencies. Advanced models outperformed traditional ones, especially at higher competence levels. It is recommended to incorporate contextual variables and validate the models in diverse educational settings.
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.