Automated grading of anatomical objective structured practical examinations using decision trees: An artificial intelligence approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) is an effective and robust, but resource-intensive, means of evaluating anatomical knowledge. Since most OSPEs employ short answer or fill-in-the-blank style questions, the format requires many people familiar with the content to mark the examinations. However, the increasing prevalence of online delivery for anatomy and physiology courses could result in students losing the OSPE practice that they would receive in face-to-face learning sessions. The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy of Decision Trees (DTs) in marking OSPE questions as a first step to creating an intelligent, online OSPE tutoring system. The study used the results of the winter 2020 semester final OSPE from McMaster University's anatomy and physiology course in the Faculty of Health Sciences (HTHSCI 2FF3/2LL3/1D06) as the data set. Ninety percent of the data set was used in a 10-fold validation algorithm to train a DT for each of the 54 questions. Each DT was comprised of unique words that appeared in correct, student-written answers. The remaining 10% of the data set was marked by the generated DTs. When the answers marked by the DT were compared to the answers marked by staff and faculty, the DT achieved an average accuracy of 94.49% across all 54 questions. This suggests that machine learning algorithms such as DTs are a highly effective option for OSPE grading and are suitable for the development of an intelligent, online OSPE tutoring system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".