In Search of Black Swans: Identifying Students at Risk of Failing Licensing Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine which admissions variables and curricular outcomes are predictive of being at risk of failing the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE1), how quickly student risk of failure can be predicted, and to what extent predictive modeling is possible and accurate in estimating future student risk. METHOD: Data from five graduating cohorts (2011-2015), Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, were collected and analyzed using hierarchical generalized linear models (HGLMs). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the accuracy of predictive models and determine whether they could be used to predict future risk, using the 2016 graduating cohort. Four predictive models were developed to predict student risk of failure at admissions, year 1, year 2, and pre-MCCQE1. RESULTS: The HGLM analyses identified gender, MCAT verbal reasoning score, two preclerkship course mean grades, and the year 4 summative objective structured clinical examination score as significant predictors of student risk. The predictive accuracy of the models varied. The pre-MCCQE1 model was the most accurate at predicting a student's risk of failing (AUC 0.66-0.93), while the admissions model was not predictive (AUC 0.25-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Key variables predictive of students at risk were found. The predictive models developed suggest, while it is not possible to identify student risk at admission, we can begin to identify and monitor students within the first year. Using such models, programs may be able to identify and monitor students at risk quantitatively and develop tailored intervention strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".