ArticlePloS one2026
Recurrent and system-specific model-attribution patterns in PISA 2022 science performance across nine education systems.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using science data from the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), we examined survey-weighted descriptive association and model-attribution patterns across a fixed, non-probability cohort of nine education systems (78,685 students). Because PISA science plausible values are drawn from a latent population distribution generated with a conditioning model that uses background information, the analysis describes survey-weighted descriptive associations rather than independent individual predictions. Seven machine-learning pipelines were evaluated descriptively across 20 repeated school-grouped held-out partitions in each system. The genetic algorithm-optimized backpropagation neural network (GA-BPNN) was retained as the focal architecture for Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), without claiming systematic or universal superiority. Alternative training-only median/mode imputation produced system- and metric-specific performance changes. The four sensitivity-supported variables-ESCS, HOMEPOS, MATHEFF, and ST255Q01JA-formed a conservative subset of the eight variables that recurred under the primary top-35 screening procedure. Feature-screening stability was assessed under the high-missingness quartile stress test, whereas held-out performance and SHAP magnitude/rank variation were assessed only under the full alternative median/mode imputation workflow; the sample-restriction analysis was not used to assess changes in SHAP ranks. A cross-architecture check showed substantial but incomplete agreement between GA-BPNN SHAP and XGBoost TreeSHAP. These results describe recurrent and system-specific attribution patterns across the nine education systems. They do not support causal inference, individual diagnosis, or generalization to all PISA systems; missing-data analyses did not resolve missing-not-at-random (MNAR) mechanisms or residual selection bias.
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.