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: 17746 →
Screen: 16701 →
Eligible: 2498 →
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 | 15818 | 2026-11-08 04:05 |
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 | 15818 | 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 | 8266 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7867 |
— | 634 |
| 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) | 16303 |
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): 14230 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 | 9188 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3845 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1197 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1367 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1076 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8301 | Not Article |
PREreview of "Scoring Rubric to Assess Ethical Issues in Clinical Artificial Intelligence Tools"
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23080258 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 8302 | scored |
Algorithmic Governance and Corporate Accountability: A Legal Framework for Responsible AI Deployment in Business Enterprises
International Journal of Applied Research in Business and Management (2026) · doi:10.51137/wrp.ijarbm.744 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8303 | Screened Out |
Digital Transformation and the Future of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review
Journal of Global Social Transformation (2026) · doi:10.71317/jgst.2.10.2026.740 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8304 | Screened Out |
The Association Between Nursing Students’ Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence and Medical Artificial Intelligence Readiness: A Descriptive and Cross-sectional Study
Ordu Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Çalışmaları Dergisi (2026) · doi:10.38108/ouhcd.1622974 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8305 | scored |
Hyperspectral imaging and machine learning in brain tumor surgery: Current evidence, clinical applications, and future directions
Surgical Neurology International (2026) · doi:10.25259/sni_847_2026 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8306 | scored |
E4R-Reviewer: Effective and Explainable Automated Code Review via End-to-End Reasoning-Guided Alignment
Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3832096 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8307 | scored |
Augmented reality displays: from fundamentals to AI integration
Advanced Photonics (2026) · doi:10.1117/1.ap.8.5.053001 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8308 | scored |
D-Dimer Dynamics as a Prognostic and Monitoring Biomarker in Triple-Negative and Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review
Breast Cancer Targets and Therapy (2026) · doi:10.2147/bctt.s637558 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8309 | scored |
Exploring Artificial Intelligence-Generated Feedback for Pharmacy Students
Pharmacy (2026) · doi:10.3390/pharmacy14070147 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8310 | scored |
Impact of Different Technologies Used in Enhancing Astro Tourism
Routledge eBooks (2026) · doi:10.4324/9781003795865-14 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8311 | scored |
Who Guards the Guardians When They Write the Rules? Keeping AI Oversight Independent
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.23088326 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8312 | scored |
Prompt engineering for academic and clinical writing: A practical guide for clinicians
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia (2026) · doi:10.4103/sja.sja_501_26 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8313 | scored |
Toward Benchmarking LLM-Based Multi-agent Systems in Educational Contexts
Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies (2026) · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18758-1_31 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8314 | scored |
AI-Driven Computer Vision for Pavement Distress Classification and Structural Degradation Mapping in Urban Highway Networks
Civil Engineering Science and Technology (2026) · doi:10.51903/30q9ch55 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8315 | scored |
Silence of Commit Messages: An Empirical Study for Vulnerability Commit Message Generation using Large Language Models
Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3832299 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8316 | Screened Out |
ChatGPT jako narzędzie we współczesnej praktyce dydaktycznej
Edukacyjna Analiza Transakcyjna (2026) · doi:10.16926/eat.2026.15.13.pl · v1.0 |
1.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8317 | scored |
Bibliometric analysis of VR interventions in cancer research based on multiple databases: mapping research hotspots and developmental trends
Frontiers in Oncology (2026) · doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1794020 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8318 | scored |
İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Eğitiminde Görsel İletişim, Dijital Teknolojiler ve Güvenlik Kültürü: Güncel Yaklaşımlar Üzerine Bir Derleme
Journal of Management and Educational Sciences (2026) · doi:10.68234/jmedusci.192 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8319 | Screened Out |
Law school 2026: what to teach, how to teach, how to assess
Law Innovation and Technology (2026) · doi:10.1080/17579961.2026.2735760 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8320 | scored |
RETRIEVAL BEATS FINE-TUNING: ADAPTING A KAZAKH SMALL LANGUAGE MODEL FOR HISTORICAL QUESTION ANSWERING
NEWS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN (2026) · doi:10.32014/2026.2518-1726.453 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8321 | scored |
Diagnostic AI tools in musculoskeletal imaging—Present and future
Osteoarthritis Imaging (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.ostima.2026.100476 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8322 | scored |
Pearls for Finding Commonly Missed Lower Extremity Fractures: Hip to Knee
Roentgen Ray Review (2026) · doi:10.2214/r3j.26.01192 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8323 | scored |
Educational Research and AI-Generated Writing: Confronting the Coming Tsunami
arXiv/Crossref (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/4mec3 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8324 | scored |
Let’s Have a Chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations
Artificial Intelligence and Applications (2023) · doi:10.47852/bonviewaia3202939 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8325 | scored |
ChatGPT - Reshaping medical education and clinical management
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences (2023) · doi:10.12669/pjms.39.2.7653 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8326 | scored |
ChatGPT-3.5 as writing assistance in students’ essays
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (2023) · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02269-7 · v1.0 |
5.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8327 | scored |
A Computer Wrote this Paper: What ChatGPT Means for Education, Research, and Writing
SSRN Electronic Journal (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4338981 · v1.0 |
0.0 (Flash Lite) | — |
| 8328 | scored |
Chatbot-assisted dynamic assessment (CA-DA) for L2 vocabulary learning and diagnosis
Computer Assisted Language Learning (2021) · doi:10.1080/09588221.2021.1987272 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8329 | Not Article |
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies (2020) · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_107 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 8330 | scored |
The impact of Google Assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate
Interactive Learning Environments (2020) · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1841801 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8331 | scored |
Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: a technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics
Educational Studies (2021) · doi:10.1080/03055698.2020.1850426 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8332 | scored |
Development of career anxiety measurement scale for university students majoring in physical education and estimating risk ratio of career anxiety utilizing 1-parameter logistic model
Korean Journal of Sports Science (2024) · doi:10.35159/kjss.2024.4.33.2.576 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8333 | scored |
Slovenská adaptácia Testu pre identifikáciu matematicky nadaných detí (TIM3–5): možnosti a obmedzenia použitia v praxi
Ceskoslovenska psychologie (2024) · doi:10.51561/cspsych.68.2.186 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8334 | scored |
Validation of the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS) in the Czech Republic
Ceskoslovenska psychologie (2024) · doi:10.51561/cspsych.68.2.135 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8335 | scored |
INDONESIAN VERSION OF SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE, A PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION WITH RASCH MODEL
Psychological Thought (2024) · doi:10.37708/psyct.v17i1.814 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8336 | scored |
Validation of the Barthel Index in Chinese nursing home residents: an item response theory analysis
Frontiers in Psychology (2024) · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1352878 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8337 | Screened Out |
Calibrating and Evaluating Automated Scoring Engines and Human Raters over Time Using Measurement Models
Routledge eBooks (2024) · doi:10.4324/9781003397618-23 · v1.0 |
3.7 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 8338 | scored |
Rasch analysis of the Unidimensional Self‐Efficacy Scale in Neuromuscular Disorders and comparison between sex, age, and diagnoses
Muscle & Nerve (2024) · doi:10.1002/mus.28104 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8339 | No Fulltext |
AI Scoring and Writing Fairness
Routledge eBooks (2024) · doi:10.4324/9781003397618-24 · v1.0 |
6.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8340 | scored |
Development of mobile CAT for patient feedback on pediatric consultations based on Rasch analysis of online techniques
Medicine (2024) · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000037993 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8341 | scored |
The Sport Experience Measure for Children and Youth (SEM:CY): A Rasch Validation Study
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (2024) · doi:10.1123/jsep.2023-0168 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8342 | scored |
Development and validation of a short form of the medication literacy scale for Chinese College Students
arXiv (Cornell University) (2024) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.02853 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8343 | scored |
Spanish Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana Scale: The Protective Behavioral Strategies for Cannabis Scale (S-PBSC)
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2024) · doi:10.1007/s11469-024-01311-2 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8344 | Screened Out |
ANALISIS BUTIR SOAL MATEMATIKA PADA PENILAIAN AKHIR SEMESTER GANJIL MENGGUNAKAN RASCH MODEL KELAS X SMA NEGERI 2 BUNGURAN TIMUR
JUMLAHKU Jurnal Matematika Ilmiah STKIP Muhammadiyah Kuningan (2024) · doi:10.33222/jumlahku.v10i1.3666 · v1.0 |
3.3 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8345 | scored |
Development and Validation of the Jawline Subject Satisfaction Scale
Plastic Surgery (2024) · doi:10.1177/22925503241249757 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8346 | scored |
Psychometric properties of the Beliefs About Adults with ID Scale in American physicians: Application of classical test and Rasch measurement theories
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research (2024) · doi:10.1111/jir.13143 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8347 | scored |
The ethos brief index—validation of a brief questionnaire to evaluate wellness based on a holistic perspective in patients with restless legs syndrome
Sleep And Breathing (2024) · doi:10.1007/s11325-024-03058-5 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8348 | scored |
Development and application of the Meal and Snack Assessment (MESA) quality scale for children and adolescents using item response theory
Nutrition Journal (2024) · doi:10.1186/s12937-024-00948-y · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8349 | scored |
Opportunities and threats for agrifood firms. The case of wineries applying Rasch analysis
Wine Economics and Policy (2024) · doi:10.36253/wep-15280 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 8350 | Screened Out |
Detection of differential item functioning with latent class analysis: PISA 2018 mathematical literacy test
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education (2024) · doi:10.21449/ijate.1387041 · v1.0 |
4.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |