Using Machine Learning in Veterinary Medical Education: An Introduction for Veterinary Medicine Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) offers potential opportunities to enhance the learning, teaching and assessments within veterinary medical education including but not limited to assisting with admissions processes as well as student progress evaluations. The purpose of this primer is to assist veterinary educators in appraising and potentially adopting these rapid upcoming advances in data science and technology. In the first section, we introduce ML concepts and highlight similarities/differences between ML and classical statistics. In the second section, we provide a step-by-step worked example using simulated veterinary student data to answer a hypothesis driven question. Python syntax with explanations is provided within the text to create a random forest ML prediction model and within each step, specific considerations such as how to manage incomplete student records are highlighted when applying ML algorithms within the veterinary education field. The results from the simulated data demonstrate how decisions by the veterinary educator during ML model creation may impact the most important features contributing to the model. These results highlight the need for the veterinary educator to be fully transparent during the creation of ML models and future research is needed to establish guidelines for handling data not missing at random in medical education, and preferred methods for model evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".