Systematic Review Flow (PRISMA 2020)
Transparent flow of article identification, LLM screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and inclusion into living synthesis with expert validation.
✓ PRISMA funnel conservation verified (100% stage closure)
Zero data leakage: n_in = n_out + ∑n_excl + n_pending verified across identification, screening, eligibility, and synthesis.
ID: 17683 →
Screen: 16661 →
Eligible: 2496 →
Included: 84
Expert Validation & Taste Loop
Independent of the formal PRISMA selection rules: editorial verdicts by the curator to calibrate quality and active learning.
👍 10
Approved in digest
(14 total in corpus)
👎 29
Rejected with reason
(1 pre / 18 post analysis)
Breakdown of expert rejection reasons:
not_novel: 4
not_for_educators: 3
off_topic: 13
too_narrow: 2
duplicate: 5
other: 1
weak_method: 1
📋 Structured Review Summary (PRISMA 2020: Item 2)
Background: Living systematic review of Large Language Models (LLMs) and autonomous agents in higher education. Focuses on engineering countermeasures to academic dishonesty and redesign of assessment.
Objectives: Systematic identification, screening, and synthesis of empirical evidence regarding reliability, methodological rigor, and consensus challenges in higher education GenAI integration.
Eligibility Criteria: Scholarly works with open-access full text; topic relevance R ≥ 4.0; weighted final score ≥ 5.0.
Information Sources: Multi-register tracking: arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, plus forward/backward citation loops (depth 1–2).
Risk of Bias & Quality: Multi-criteria methodological rigor (M, 0–10). Screening reliability validated via dual evaluation: Gwet's AC1, stratified recall, and ROC AUC.
Synthesis & Included: Included n = 84 verified works into the living review with extracted claims, limitations, and empirical findings.
🎯 PICO / PECO Search & Eligibility Framework (PRISMA 2020: Items 4–5)
| Component | Protocol Definition | Inclusion / Exclusion Boundaries |
|---|---|---|
| P (Population) | Higher education: universities, colleges, undergraduate/graduate students, instructors, and examiners. | Included: higher/tertiary education. Excluded: purely K-12 primary education without transferability. |
| I / E (Intervention / Exposure) | Use of modern LLMs (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama) and agentic frameworks for exam solving, tutoring, or automated grading. | Included: empirical testing and deployment of LLMs. Excluded: legacy non-generative ML or symbolic AI. |
| C (Comparator) | Traditional non-AI assessments, human baselines, or comparative evaluation of engineering defenses (guardrails, multi-agent validation). | Included: baselines, cohort comparisons, or countermeasures. Excluded: purely speculative essays without comparator. |
| O (Outcomes) | Task performance, exam breach rates, countermeasure resilience, shift in assessment rubrics, cognitive learning outcomes. | Included: empirical accuracy, resilience, rubric difficulty, psychometrics. Excluded: unverified claims. |
| S (Study Design) | Empirical studies: controlled experiments (RCT), quasi-experiments, case studies, psychometric evaluations, benchmark audits. | Included: peer-reviewed/preprint research with empirical data. Excluded: opinion blogs, press releases. |
* Footnote *: Prefilter Mathematical Model, Indicators & Scoring Formula (Rubric v2.3)
Rubric Indicators & Parameters
| Symbol | Indicator Name | Weight / Value |
|---|---|---|
| M | Methodological Rigor | wM = 0.32 |
| E | Engineering Countermeasures | wE = 0.25 |
| C | Consensus Challenge | wC = 0.43 |
| N | Novelty | wN = 0.00 |
| R | Topic Relevance (0–10) | Rmin = 4.0, Rfull = 7.0 |
| Gate | Binary Scope Gate | PASS / FAIL |
| Поріг | Pass Threshold | Score ≥ 5.0 |
Relevance R is a multiplier, not a summand: papers with R < R_min receive 0, and high-quality off-topic papers cannot outrank topical ones.
Scoring Formulae (MathML Core)
1. Final Prefilter Score:
2. Weighted Quality Score (Q):
3. Logical Prefilter Screening Criterion:
Methods & reporting (PRISMA 2020 items 1–15, 23–27)
Review type, objective, eligibility (1, 3–5)
Living systematic review: a daily-updated, automation-assisted selection. It is a literature-selection tool, not a published review with meta-analysis.
Topic (given to the model): Validity of educational assessment under generative AI and how to keep it (AI-resistant / AI-resilient assessment). Core: how generative AI changes what grades and test scores mean (validity arguments in the sense of Kane and Messick), assessment redesign, and quantitative methods that detect or model the distortion in assessment and learning data: item response theory, differential item functioning between humans and LLMs, item parameter drift, rater drift, item compromise and preknowledge, score shifts under unsupervised or online conditions (proctored vs unproctored exams, cheating, grade inflation), change-point and concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters, computerized adaptive testing and automated test assembly. Computational, statistical and engineering work is preferred, but a solid conceptual or empirical education study of assessment under generative AI belongs here too. Detectors of AI-generated text and watermarking are only adjacent to the topic. The audience is university educators and researchers: work about primary and secondary school (K-12) is off topic unless its findings or methods clearly transfer to higher education.
- Include: a scholarly article with topic relevance R ≥ 4.0, final score ≥ 5.0; a legal open-access full text that was actually read.
- Exclude: non-articles (datasets, code, errata), duplicates and preprints of published works, retracted works, K-12 with no transfer to higher education, works without full text (paywall, fetch errors), expert-rejected works (👎, reason recorded).
- Manual additions (origin = manual) bypass score screening but go through eligibility assessment.
Information sources & last searched (6)
| Channel | Records | Last record |
|---|---|---|
search — arXiv, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC | 15755 | 2026-11-08 02:23 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1901 | 2026-11-08 02:26 |
manual — added manually | 27 | 2026-10-07 12:05 |
Citation candidates take metadata from OpenAlex; Crossref/Unpaywall supply DOIs, versions and open PDFs.
Search strategy (7)
Current search version: v1.0. A work matches if its title/abstract hits a term from EVERY group of at least one query (OR within a group; case-insensitive, word boundaries).
Queries (groups):
education × ai; psychometrics × ai; integrity × education; drift × education; drift × psychometrics
education: education, educational, student, learner, teacher, lecturer, classroom, university, higher education, school, curriculum, assessment, exam, examination, examinee, test taker, test score, grading, homework, coursework, online course, essay, academic integrity, academic misconduct, plagiarism, cheating, e-learning, MOOC
ai: generative AI, GenAI, large language model, LLM, ChatGPT, GPT-4, chatbot, AI-generated, AI-assisted, AI-resistant, AI-resilient, AI tool, artificial intelligence
integrity: proctoring, proctored, unproctored, non-proctored, remote proctoring, online exam, online test, online testing, exam integrity, testing integrity, academic integrity, academic dishonesty, cheating, contract cheating, grade inflation
psychometrics: item response theory, IRT, Rasch, psychometric, educational measurement, educational testing, differential item functioning, computerized adaptive testing, adaptive testing, automated test assembly, knowledge tracing, automated scoring, automated essay scoring, validity argument, construct validity, assessment validity, predictive validity
drift: parameter drift, dynamic item response, item parameter drift, rater drift, severity drift, concept drift, change point, change-point detection, item compromise, preknowledge, item exposure, test security, aberrant response, person-fit, differential item functioning
Semantic Scholar phrases: assessment validity generative AI; AI-resilient assessment higher education; AI-resistant assessment design; generative AI exam performance natural experiment; differential item functioning large language models humans; LLM as test taker item response theory; proctored versus unproctored online exam scores; generative AI grade inflation; item parameter drift detection; item compromise preknowledge detection; concept drift knowledge tracing; change point detection educational testing
arXiv: cs.CY, cs.CL, cs.HC, cs.AI, cs.LG, stat.AP, stat.ME. Result caps per query: OpenAlex 50, Semantic Scholar 25, ERIC 25. Citation searching: depth 1 from read and 👍 works, depth 2 from 👍 only; neighbours of 👍 works bypass the lexical filter.
| Search version | Records (search) | First | Last |
|---|---|---|---|
v1.0 | 15755 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-08 |
Selection process & automation (8, 9, 11)
- Abstract screening: a single automated reviewer — an LLM (gemini-3.1-flash-lite, gemini-3.5-flash-lite), batches of 20, models alternate; every evaluation is stored (prefilter_evaluations) with model and rubric version.
- Full-text analysis and data collection: gemini-3.8-flash, gemini-3.7-flash, gemini-3.6-flash, prompt
v2.1. Only after PDF→Markdown conversion; the model is never called without full text. - Verification: code checks every quote against the text (exact match after normalisation); unconfirmed claims are discarded.
- Human: no independent second reviewer. The owner gives 👍/👎 verdicts on a sample (50% near threshold, 30% top, 20% random); they steer the queue and few-shot examples but do not change the score.
- Data items (10): summary, method/data/sample, claims, limitations, study design (assessment_design, psychometric_modeling, natural_experiment, detector_evaluation, survey, rct, quasi_experiment, qualitative, theoretical, review, other), tags, rubric criteria.
- Risk of bias (11): not assessed formally (RoB, GRADE not applied); criterion M (methodological rigor, 0–10) is a ranking score, not a RoB tool. No effect measures or meta-analysis (12, 13d–f, 15): synthesis is qualitative, via article analyses and tags.
| Screening model | Scored |
|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | 8246 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7849 |
— | 632 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 186 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 110 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 102 |
Scoring rubric v2.3 (0–10 anchors)
The model scores 0–10 per criterion; the anchors below are embedded in the prompt. Formula and weights are in the footnote above. Changing anchors or weights without a new version is blocked by a hash check.
| Criterion | Weight | 2 | 5 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic relevance (R) | × min(1, R/7.0) | No link to education or assessment: image, audio or model watermarking, model IP protection, general NLP benchmarks, AI in industry. | Adjacent: generative AI in education without an assessment focus; academic integrity with no evidence on assessment outcomes; detectors of AI-generated text or of student AI use; general psychometrics (adaptive testing, test assembly, IRT) with no drift, validity or AI angle. | Core: validity of assessment under generative AI (what grades and scores mean when AI is available); how grades shift under unsupervised conditions or cheating (proctored vs unproctored exams, grade inflation); AI-resistant or AI-resilient assessment design; quantitative methods that detect or model distorted assessment or learning data (DIF between humans and LLMs, item parameter or rater drift, item compromise/preknowledge, change-point or concept-drift detection, LLMs as test takers or raters). |
| Methodological rigor (M) | 0.32 | Vague evaluation, convenience sample of a few dozen, self-report only, no control group or baseline. | Clear dataset or sample (hundreds), standard metrics or validated instruments, comparison with baselines or a control group. | Randomized/controlled or preregistered, large or multi-site/multilingual data, adversarial or robustness checks, effect sizes with uncertainty. |
| Engineering countermeasures (E) | 0.25 | No method or countermeasure: describes impact, attitudes or policy only. | A concrete method or countermeasure with an evaluation: statistical test or model, detector, scoring procedure, or an assessment design tried on real cohorts. | A rigorous, reusable method: formal model with guarantees or error control, open code, validated on both real and simulated data. |
| Consensus challenge (C) | 0.43 | Reconfirms standard wisdom. | Nuances the consensus (e.g. detectors fail under mild paraphrasing; AI use does not harm an outcome it is assumed to harm). | Directly refutes high-profile claims with rigorous evidence. |
| Novelty (N) | 0.00 | Replicates well-known findings (another survey of student attitudes to ChatGPT, another test of one detector on a handful of prompts). | New dataset, benchmark, population or setting, or a previously untried technique. | Fundamentally new attack or defence, a theoretical/impossibility result, or a finding that changes how the field frames the problem. |
The model interpolates between anchors. The deep-analysis score is computed by code with the same formula from criteria_breakdown.
| Rubric version | Papers scored |
|---|---|
v2.0 | 261 |
v2.1 | 183 |
v2.2 | 20 |
v2.3 (current) | 16263 |
Screening Validation: Reliability & Agreement Metrics
Reference standard: expert verdicts. Full PRISMA systematic review metrics computed: recall, specificity, NPV, F₁, F₂, ROC AUC, DOR, paradox-immune Gwet's AC₁, and continuous score agreement.
| Measure | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Seed-set recall | 50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | Share of manually added 👍 works (bypassing screening) scoring ≥ threshold 5.0. Unbiased sensitivity estimate on this set. |
| Estimated corpus recall | 100% (100–100%) | Post-stratified by score band from judged works; conservative interval. Relevant works missed ≈ 0 (0–0). Not measured (too few verdicts in band): 14192 screened-out works. |
| Sensitivity / Recall | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% | Share of relevant works passed by screening: TP / (TP + FN). |
| Specificity | 20% (4/20), 95% CI 8–42% | Share of irrelevant works rejected by screening: TN / (TN + FP). |
| Precision / PPV | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% | Share of expert-approved among screening passes: TP / (TP + FP). |
| Negative Predictive Value (NPV) | 100% (4/4), 95% CI 51–100% | Share of truly irrelevant among screened-out works: TN / (TN + FN). Protects against losing relevant papers. |
| F-scores (F₁ and F₂) | F₁: 0.60 · F₂: 0.79 | F₂ weights recall twice as much as precision — critical safety metric against false exclusions in PRISMA. |
| Balanced Accuracy | 60.0% | Arithmetic mean of sensitivity and specificity, unaffected by class imbalance. |
| Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) | 6.82 | DOR = (TP · TN) / (FP · FN) with Haldane-Anscombe correction. Overall discriminative capability of screening. |
| ROC AUC | 0.65 (95% CI 0.43–0.84) | Probability a 👍 work outscores a 👎 one (0.5 = chance). CI computed via DeLong / Bootstrap. |
| Inter-Rater Agreement (Gwet's AC₁ & Cohen's κ) | — | Gwet's AC₁ is paradox-immune inter-rater agreement on double-scored works, robust to severe class imbalance (80-90% screening rejection). |
| Continuous Score Agreement |
MAD: — r Пірсона: — |
Mean Absolute Difference (MAD) and Pearson r between scores of screening models on shared papers. |
| Score band | Works | Judged | 👍 | 👍 rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0–2.0 | 9157 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3839 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1196 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1366 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1075 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 31 | 2 (too few) | 2 | 100% |
| Screening model | Seed recall | AUC | Sens / Spec | Prec / NPV | F₁ / AC₁ | 👍 / 👎 (TP/FP/FN/TN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite |
50% (1/2), 95% CI 9–91% | 0.63 | 100% (12/12), 95% CI 76–100% / 16% (3/19), 95% CI 6–38% | 43% (12/28), 95% CI 27–61% / 100% (3/3), 95% CI 44–100% | 0.60 / 0.05 | 12 / 19 (12/16/0/3) |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite |
— | — | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 100% (1/1), 95% CI 21–100% | — / 1.00 | 0 / 1 (0/0/0/1) |
— |
— | — | — / — | — / — | — / — | 0 / 0 (0/0/0/0) |
To narrow intervals, judge works from lower score bands: /admin/taste includes 20% random picks. Metrics update automatically with each verdict.
Methodological Rigor & Study Designs (11, 18)
Methodological rigor M (0–10) is evaluated during full-text analysis. Study design distribution reflects verified empirical classifications.
Mean Rigor (M)
6.53 / 10
Analyzed papers: 663
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 328
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 316
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 19
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 256 |
other | 47 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 177 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 56 |
detector_evaluation | 43 |
survey | 7 |
review | 20 |
experimental | 1 |
qualitative | 11 |
PRISMA 2020 27-Item Compliance Checklist
Full audit of compliance with PRISMA 2020 checklist (Page et al., 2021) for automated systematic reviews.
| № | Section / Item | Checklist Description | Status | Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | Identify as living systematic review | ✓ Впроваджено | Page title, report metadata |
| 2 | Abstract | Structured summary (background, objectives, methods, results) | ✓ Впроваджено | #prisma-abstract block above |
| 3 | Rationale | Rationale in context of existing knowledge | ✓ Впроваджено | Topic description and rationale |
| 4 | Objectives | Explicit objectives using PICO / PECO | ✓ Впроваджено | #pico-framework table above |
| 5 | Eligibility criteria | Inclusion/exclusion criteria, language, dates | ✓ Впроваджено | Thresholds R, Score, Open Access |
| 6 | Information sources | Databases, registers, search dates | ✓ Впроваджено | arXiv, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, ERIC, citations |
| 7 | Search strategy | Full search strategy, boolean filters, versions | ✓ Впроваджено | search_version, term groups, API limits |
| 8 | Selection process | Selection process, automation, independent screening | ✓ Впроваджено | LLM screening rotation + editorial taste loop |
| 9 | Data collection | Data collection from full-text reports | ✓ Впроваджено | PDF → MD parser, deep prompt v2.1 |
| 10a-b | Data items | List of outcomes and study characteristics | ✓ Впроваджено | Summary, sample, design, claims, countermeasures |
| 11 | Study risk of bias | Assessment of study methodological quality | ✓ Впроваджено | Rigor criterion M (0–10), quality distribution |
| 12 | Effect measures | Effect measures for outcomes | — Обґрунтовано N/A | Qualitative synthesis without meta-analytic pooled effects |
| 13a-f | Synthesis methods | Synthesis criteria and grouping methods | ✓ Впроваджено | Tag-based clustering, comparative study cards |
| 14 | Reporting bias | Assessment of reporting/publication bias | ✓ Впроваджено | Analysis of paywall exclusions & open access skew |
| 15 | Certainty assessment | Certainty assessment of body of evidence | ✓ Впроваджено | Automated quote grounding against full-text Markdown |
| 16 | Study selection | Selection results (flow diagram, counts) | ✓ Впроваджено | 100% stage conservation closure verified |
| 17 | Study characteristics | Characteristics of included studies table | ✓ Впроваджено | Interactive table with DOI, venue, year, tags |
| 18 | Risk of bias in studies | Risk of bias findings across studies | ✓ Впроваджено | Methodological rigor M & study designs table |
| 19 | Results of individual studies | Results for each individual study | ✓ Впроваджено | Public paper pages /doi/{doi} with full analysis |
| 20a-d | Results of syntheses | Results of syntheses & sub-groups | ✓ Впроваджено | Daily living editions, RSS feed, tag filters |
| 21 | Reporting biases | Results of reporting biases assessment | ✓ Впроваджено | Paywall n=347, retracted n=0 |
| 22 | Certainty of evidence | Summary of evidence certainty | ✓ Впроваджено | Gwet's AC₁, Cohen's κ, stratified recall, ROC AUC |
| 23a-d | Discussion | Discussion, limitations, implications | ✓ Впроваджено | Limitations section (23b, 23c) in methods |
| 24a-c | Registration & protocol | Registration, protocol availability, amendments | ✓ Впроваджено | Public repo, version history of search & rubric |
| 25 | Support | Financial & non-financial support | ✓ Впроваджено | Free API tiers declared in methods |
| 26 | Competing interests | Competing interests statement | ✓ Впроваджено | Declared in methods section |
| 27 | Data & code availability | Availability of data, analytical code, materials | ✓ Впроваджено | Export to CSV / JSON buttons, open-source code |
Limitations (23b, 23c)
- Open access only: paywalled papers never reach the synthesis, so the sample skews to open and preprint work.
- Screening ranks by quality and novelty rather than pure eligibility, so the sample skews towards counter-consensus work. Validity is measured against one expert (see above); a single LLM reviewer, model bias and version differences remain possible.
- The lexical filter and result caps can miss works with other terminology; sources skew English-language.
- Records scored under an older rubric version are not rescored automatically (see version table).
- Free Gemini quota: daily limits slow analysis; some selected works wait in the queue.
Registration, protocol, amendments, support, data (24–27)
- Registration: not registered. The protocol is the configuration (topic, queries, rubric, thresholds) in the project repository; it is reproduced in this block.
- Amendments: search versions (search_version) and rubric versions (rubric_version), tables above.
- Funding: none declared, free API tiers are used. Competing interests: none declared.
- Data: analyses and metadata are on article pages, RSS and sitemap; full texts are private (copyright) and not published.
Filter by Tags
Select one or more tags to refine the flow numbers and article corpus.
#psychometrics (107)
#Psychometrics (62)
#Item Response Theory (51)
#academic integrity (49)
#Assessment Validity (41)
#assessment validity (40)
#item response theory (39)
#higher education (37)
#Automated Essay Scoring (35)
#automated essay scoring (32)
#Generative AI (29)
#Construct Validity (26)
#construct validity (26)
#IRT (24)
#LLM as rater (22)
#Large Language Models (21)
#generative AI (21)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Higher Education (19)
#assessment redesign (18)
#Automated Scoring (17)
#LLM Evaluation (17)
#large language models (17)
#prompt engineering (17)
#GPT-4 (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#automated scoring (16)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#LLM as Rater (14)
#validity (14)
#Assessment Redesign (13)
#ChatGPT (13)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#differential item functioning (13)
#Prompt Engineering (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#Automated Item Generation (11)
#LLMs as raters (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#inter-rater reliability (11)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#LLMs as Test Takers (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#rater drift (10)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (9)
#DIF (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#Knowledge Tracing (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#Medical Education (9)
#automated_essay_scoring (9)
#concept drift (9)
#formative assessment (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Computer Science Education (8)
#Differential Item Functioning (8)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8151 | scored |
Do question type and topic affect the performance of large language models in answering periodontology questions? A comparative study
BMC Medical Education (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-10516-z · v1.0 |
5.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8152 | Screened Out |
Quantrix–Claude MCP bridge (2026): Quantrix Modeler plugin, Model Context Protocol server and Claude skill for AI-assisted financial modelling
Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23078959 · v1.0 |
3.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8153 | scored |
A Study on Methods for Evaluating the Quality of Datasets for Intelligent Algorithm Evaluation
Electronics (2026) · doi:10.3390/electronics15194488 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8154 | scored |
Improving the implementation of an adolescent obesity prevention intervention in under-resourced schools
BMC Public Health (2026) · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-29723-w · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8155 | scored |
TabEva: A unified evaluation framework for tabular data synthesis
Applied Soft Computing (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2026.116553 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8156 | scored |
Structure-Based Virtual Screening and AI-Assisted Prioritization of Small-Molecule RANKL-Binding Candidates for Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Bone Erosion
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23074258 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8157 | Screened Out |
Serious-Play Cards for Teaching AI Applications in Manufacturing
INFORMS Transactions on Education (2026) · doi:10.1287/ited.2025.0179 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8158 | scored |
Artificial Intelligence-Assisted ACR TI-RADS Assessment of Thyroid Nodules: Potential for Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies in a Prospective Single-Center Study
Tomography (2026) · doi:10.3390/tomography12100144 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8159 | Screened Out |
Metacognition in AI-Supported Second Language Learning: A Systematic Review of Constructs, Measures, and Evidence (2016–2026)
Journal of Intelligence (2026) · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14100236 · v1.0 |
3.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8160 | scored |
KG-LLM: Knowledge graph-guided LLM augmentation for fine-grained subtitle similarity
Information Processing & Management (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2026.105201 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8161 | scored |
Teaching AI with games: the impact of generative AI drawing on computational thinking skills
Education and Information Technologies : Official Journal of the IFIP technical committee on Education (2025) · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13624-3 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8162 | scored |
College students’ use behavior of generative AI and its influencing factors under the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model
Education and Information Technologies : Official Journal of the IFIP technical committee on Education (2025) · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13508-6 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8163 | scored |
Undergraduate students’ perspectives of generative AI ethics
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2025) · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00533-1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8164 | scored |
Effect of the “Neuro-Adapter” generative AI environment on ninth-grade students’ spatial imagination skills across analytical and visual cognitive processing styles
Frontiers in Education (2026) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1889349 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8165 | scored |
Promoting the Development of Primary School Students’ Scientific Thinking through Questioning with Generative AI: A Practical Exploration — Taking the Lesson "Candle Combustion" in Grade Five as an Example
Education Reform and Innovation (2026) · doi:10.65700/jyggycx2662-4963-202610944 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8166 | scored |
Assessing Linguistic and Content Characteristics of First-Grade Students’ Texts Using Generative AI
Education sciences (2026) · doi:10.3390/educsci16081227 · v1.0 |
5.1 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8167 | scored |
Role of Generative AI Literary Assistants in Enhancing Ninth-Grade Students’ Writing Motivation, Flow and Achievement
Computers and Education Open (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100339 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8168 | scored |
Generative AI acceptance in study-travel contexts: an integrative model of affective and utilitarian pathways with mediation and grade-level moderation
Frontiers in Psychology (2026) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1961221 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8169 | scored |
The Impact of Teacher-Facilitated Generative AI Lesson Plans in 6th-Grade Science on Collaborative Learning, Science Attitudes, and Academic Achievement
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2026) · doi:10.1007/s10763-026-10725-4 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8170 | scored |
An Analysis of the Collaborative Problem-Solving Process Between 5th Grade Students and a Generative AI-Based Chatbot
Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea (2025) · doi:10.54340/kseme.2025.29.2.2 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8171 | scored |
Generative AI for Early Grade Story Generation Using a Self-Reflective Approach
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (2025) · doi:10.1109/icalt64023.2025.00058 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8172 | scored |
Optimizing Offline Generative AI in Remote Indonesian Schools, with a Focus on 12th Grade Papuan Students
2025 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Teacher Education (ICAITE) (2025) · doi:10.1109/icaite68636.2025.11442530 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8173 | scored |
The Impact of Generative AI on Grade 8 Student Engagement in Secondary Programming Education: A Mixed-Methods Quasi-Experimental Study
Proceedings of the 2025 9th International Conference on Education and E-Learning (2025) · doi:10.1145/3789859.3789907 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8174 | scored |
Unlocking Learning Potentials: The Transformative Effect of Generative AI in Education Across Grade Levels
arXiv.org (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.13535 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8175 | scored |
Using an Immersive Virtual Reality Game Guided by Generative AI for Fifth-Grade Science Learning
2025 IEEE Smart World Congress (SWC) (2025) · doi:10.1109/swc65939.2025.00072 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8176 | scored |
The Use of Grammarly (Generative AI) to Enhance Student’s Writing Skill of Analytical Exposition Text for 11th Grade Students at SMA PGRI Cianjur
Journal of education (2025) · doi:10.60012/cje.v3i1.124 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8177 | Screened Out |
Unpacking automated test assembly: New findings and directions for the future
arXiv/Crossref (2024) · doi:10.37517/2024041114-01 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8178 | Screened Out |
A Framework for Detecting Both Main Effect and Interactive DIF in Multidimensional Forced-Choice Assessments
Organizational Research Methods (2024) · doi:10.1177/10944281241244760 · v1.0 |
3.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8179 | scored |
Assessment of adult cognitive abilities in Greece: A differential item functioning study of the General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA)
Psychology the Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society (2024) · doi:10.12681/psy_hps.34184 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8180 | scored |
Piloting Rasch model scoring of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire in uveitis
Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection (2024) · doi:10.1186/s12348-024-00398-x · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8181 | scored |
Baby Observational Selective Control AppRaisal (BabyOSCAR): Construct validity and test performance
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology (2024) · doi:10.1111/dmcn.15926 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8182 | scored |
43 The Development of the Preschool Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation Short Forms
Journal of Burn Care & Research (2024) · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irae036.043 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8183 | scored |
Unveiling disparities: examining differential item functioning’s impact on racial health equity among white and black populations
Public Health (2024) · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.03.006 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8184 | scored |
A Psychometric Evaluation of the Dysphagia Handicap Index Using Rasch Analysis
Journal of Clinical Medicine (2024) · doi:10.3390/jcm13082331 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8185 | scored |
Applicability and clinical utility of the German rivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnaire in proxies of children after traumatic brain injury: an instrument validation study
BMC Neurology (2024) · doi:10.1186/s12883-024-03587-2 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8186 | scored |
Validation of the Adolescent Dating Violence Victim-Blaming Attitudes Scale
Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2024) · doi:10.1177/08862605241245999 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8187 | Screened Out |
Interprofessionelle Kooperationskompetenz von Pflegeauszubildenden im Kontext der digitalen Transformation
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik (2024) · doi:10.3262/zp2402202 · v1.0 |
3.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8188 | scored |
Rasch validation of the short form (8 item) PC-QoL questionnaire and applicability of use as a health state classification system for a new preference-based measure
Quality of Life Research (2024) · doi:10.1007/s11136-024-03652-w · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8189 | scored |
Das Geschlechterparadoxon in der gesundheitlich beeinträchtigten Lebenszeit – Ende eines Mythos?
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz (2024) · doi:10.1007/s00103-024-03877-7 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8190 | scored |
Mixed Methods for Psychological Measurement
Routledge eBooks (2024) · doi:10.4324/9781003144717 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8191 | scored |
Psychometric characteristics of individuals’ intention to engage in philanthropic activities measure: An early development and tryout
F1000Research (2024) · doi:10.12688/f1000research.147172.1 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8192 | scored |
Validation of the Chinese version of the exercise empowerment scale among college students (EES-C)
Frontiers in Psychology (2024) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349310 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8193 | scored |
Thriving from work questionnaire: Spanish translation and validation
BMC Public Health (2024) · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18173-x · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8194 | scored |
Assessment of anxiety in children with neurodevelopment disorders: Rasch analysis of the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale
Frontiers in Psychiatry (2024) · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1240357 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8195 | abstract_only |
Detecting differential item functioning in presence of multilevel data: do methods accounting for multilevel data structure make a DIFference?
Frontiers in Education (2024) · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1389165 · v1.0 |
6.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8196 | scored |
RASCH MODEL ON ECONOMICS MATHEMATICS BELIEF SCALE
Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi Perkantoran dan Akuntansi (2024) · doi:10.21009/jpepa.0501.24 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8197 | scored |
A Novel Approach for Assessing Non-stationarity in Hydroclimatic Extremes
arXiv/Crossref (2025) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-929 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8198 | scored |
Understanding GHG Emission Trends in Romania: Sectoral and Regional Perspectives
arXiv/Crossref (2025) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-15353 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8199 | scored |
A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Self-Fit Methods to the Best-Practices Method of Hearing Aid Fitting
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (2025) · doi:10.1044/2024_jslhr-24-00423 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8200 | scored |
A Self-Supervised Learning Approach for Zero-Day Attack Detection in Network Traffic Analysis
International Conference on Advanced Algorithms and Control Engineering (ICAACE) (2025) · doi:10.1109/icaace65325.2025.11020458 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |