The Application of Adaptive Minimum Match k-Nearest Neighbors to Identify At-Risk Students in Health Professions Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When learners fail to reach milestones, educators often wonder if any warning signs could have allowed them to intervene sooner. Machine learning can predict which students are at risk for failing a high-stakes certification examination. If predictions can be made well before the examination, educators can meaningfully intervene before students take the examination to reduce their chances of failing. METHODS: The authors used already-collected, first-year student assessment data from 5 cohorts in a single Master of Physician Assistant Studies program to implement an "adaptive minimum match" version of the k-nearest neighbors algorithm using changing numbers of neighbors to predict each student's future examination scores on the Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam (PANCE). Validation occurred in 2 ways by using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and by evaluating predictions in a new cohort. RESULTS: "Adaptive minimum match" version of the k-nearest neighbors algorithm achieved an accuracy of 93% in LOOCV. "Adaptive minimum match" version of the k-nearest neighbors algorithm generates a predicted PANCE score for each student one year before they take the examination. Students are classified into extra support, optional extra support, or no extra support categories. Then, one year remains to provide appropriate support to each category of student. DISCUSSION: Predictive analytics can identify at-risk students who might need additional support or remediation before high-stakes certification examinations. Educators can use the included methods and code to generate predicted test outcomes for students. The authors recommend that educators use predictive modeling responsibly and transparently, as one of many tools used to support students. More research is needed to test alternative machine learning methods across a variety of educational programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".