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: 17222 →
Screen: 16208 →
Eligible: 2414 →
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 | 15429 | 2026-11-07 04:07 |
ref — reference lists of read works | 1766 | 2026-11-07 02:24 |
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 | 15429 | 2026-10-06 | 2026-11-07 |
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 | 8020 |
gemini-3.5-flash-lite | 7635 |
— | 619 |
| Analysis model | prompt | Analyses |
|---|---|---|
gemini-3.1-flash-lite | v2.1 | 275 |
gemini-3.6-flash | v2.1 | 168 |
gemini-3.8-flash | v2.1 | 102 |
gemini-3.7-flash | v2.1 | 95 |
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) | 15810 |
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): 13821 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 | 8944 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 2.0–4.0 | 3725 | 0 (too few) | 0 | — |
| 4.0–5.0 | 1152 | 2 (too few) | 0 | 0% |
| 5.0–6.0 ✓ | 1316 | 3 | 2 | 67% |
| 6.0–8.0 ✓ | 1044 | 23 | 8 | 35% |
| 8.0–10.0 ✓ | 30 | 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)
6.58 / 10
Analyzed papers: 630
Quality Stratification
🟢 High rigor (M ≥ 7.0): 322
🟡 Moderate rigor (4.0 ≤ M < 7.0): 291
🔴 Low rigor (M < 4.0): 17
| Study Design | Paper Count |
|---|---|
psychometric_modeling | 243 |
other | 43 |
theoretical | 27 |
rct | 13 |
assessment_design | 167 |
natural_experiment | 5 |
quasi_experiment | 54 |
detector_evaluation | 41 |
survey | 7 |
review | 18 |
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=335, 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 (101)
#Psychometrics (59)
#Item Response Theory (48)
#academic integrity (46)
#assessment validity (38)
#item response theory (38)
#Assessment Validity (37)
#higher education (36)
#Automated Essay Scoring (30)
#automated essay scoring (29)
#Generative AI (28)
#construct validity (26)
#IRT (24)
#Construct Validity (23)
#LLM as rater (20)
#generative AI (20)
#Academic Integrity (19)
#Automated Scoring (17)
#Higher Education (17)
#Large Language Models (17)
#LLM Evaluation (16)
#assessment redesign (16)
#assessment_design (16)
#large language models (15)
#AI-resilient assessment (14)
#LLM as Rater (14)
#automated scoring (14)
#prompt engineering (14)
#assessment design (13)
#automated assessment (13)
#validity (13)
#Assessment Redesign (12)
#GPT-4 (12)
#Prompt Engineering (12)
#academic_integrity (12)
#differential item functioning (12)
#ChatGPT (11)
#assessment-validity (11)
#assessment_validity (11)
#benchmarking (11)
#Automated Item Generation (10)
#LLM-as-a-judge (10)
#LLMs as raters (10)
#inter-rater reliability (10)
#item_response_theory (10)
#Computerized Adaptive Testing (9)
#DIF (9)
#Inter-Rater Reliability (9)
#LLM evaluation (9)
#LLMs as Test Takers (9)
#concept drift (9)
#rater drift (9)
#AI-resistant assessment (8)
#Assessment Design (8)
#Differential Item Functioning (8)
#Knowledge Tracing (8)
#Validity (8)
#automated_essay_scoring (8)
#computerized adaptive testing (8)
#construct_validity (8)
| # | Status / Stage | Paper | LLM Score | Expert Review |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4301 | scored |
Refining risk stratification in patients with a small burden of coronary atherosclerosis by AI-guided quantitative CCTA
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.209 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4302 | scored |
The Effect of Virtual Psychological Interventions on Anxiety and Depression in the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review of Internet-Delivered Smartphone Apps and Chatbot-Based Programs
Crescent Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences (2026) · doi:10.34172/cjmb.3998 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4303 | scored |
The role of pericoronary adipose tissue inflammation in atherosclerotic plaque progression and vulnerability: insights from three different CCT-based studies
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.226 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4304 | scored |
Clinical and artificial intelligence assessed echocardiographic predictors of outcomes after acute myocardial infarction
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.1788 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4305 | scored |
Application Progress and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Assisting Radiochemical Research
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (2026) · doi:10.7538/hhx.2026.48.05.0443 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4306 | Screened Out |
Conceptualizing “Noaiphobia”: Psychophysiological stress during unaided versus AI-assisted writing in an exploratory pilot study
Addictive Behaviors Reports (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2026.100765 · v1.0 |
3.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4307 | scored |
Assessing generalizability of an AI model for cardiac amyloidosis detection in ECGs: interim results of a multi-centre, external validation study
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.2444 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4308 | scored |
Performance of an artificial intelligence-based smartphone application to assess frailty in older patients with heart failure
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.1411 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4309 | scored |
AI-enabled cardiac chamber volumetry from non-gated chest CT versus echocardiography for prediction of heart failure and atrial fibrillation: an AI-CVD study
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.202 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4310 | scored |
Enhancing clinical care in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: the use of artificial intelligence for echocardiographic follow-up during treatment with mavacamten
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.2395 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4311 | scored |
Artificial intelligence-based analysis of stent malapposition and expansion from intracoronary optical coherence tomography
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.2730 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4312 | scored |
Impact of artificial intelligence–enabled ECG implementation on diagnostic and longitudinal surveillance guideline adherence in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.2399 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4313 | scored |
EchoAgent: a vision–language ai model for guideline-based detection and grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction from echocardiographic images
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.995 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4314 | scored |
Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography for estimating left ventricular filling pressure
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.1125 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4315 | scored |
Comparison of artificial intelligence and physician assessment of global longitudinal strain before and after surgical aortic valve replacement
European Heart Journal (2026) · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehag785.127 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4316 | scored |
Analyzing Adaptive and Non-Adaptive Online Learners on Imbalanced Evolving Streams
Informatica (2023) · doi:10.31449/inf.v47i5.4527 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4317 | Screened Out |
Development of the automatic item generation system for the diagnosis of misconceptions about force and laws of motion
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education (2023) · doi:10.29333/ejmste/13251 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4318 | scored |
Ensemble and continual federated learning for classification tasks
Machine Learning (2023) · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06330-z · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4319 | scored |
In utero arsenic exposure and early childhood motor development in the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study
Frontiers in Epidemiology (2023) · doi:10.3389/fepid.2023.1139337 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4320 | scored |
Personality assessment in military – Bright and dark sides of the assessment measures: A review
Work (2023) · doi:10.3233/wor-220454 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4321 | scored |
Machine Learning Approach for Credit Score Predictions
Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (2023) · doi:10.51519/journalisi.v5i2.487 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4322 | Screened Out |
Acceptability of AI-Assisted Gamified Learning among Gen Z Learners: Perceived Learning Value, Engagement, and Responsible-Use Conditions in Philippine Senior High Schools and Higher Education Institutions
Asian Journal of Educational Leadership Management and Pedagogy (2026) · doi:10.65166/80jejs54 · v1.0 |
2.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4323 | Screened Out |
Principles of organizing an educational environment based on academic integrity
Educological discourse (2026) · doi:10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.2 · v1.0 |
1.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4324 | Screened Out |
Use of artificial intelligence applications in the educational environment of the New Ukrainian school: from inquiries to practice
Educological discourse (2026) · doi:10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.5 · v1.0 |
1.9 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4325 | Screened Out |
Current status and prospects for the transformation of teaching methods in the study of medical and biological disciplines in higher education
Educological discourse (2026) · doi:10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.9 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4326 | Screened Out |
Didactic conditions for the effective use of digital technologies in the training of students of humanities specialties
Educological discourse (2026) · doi:10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.3 · v1.0 |
2.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4327 | Screened Out |
Exploring the role of ChatGPT in special education: potential uses and concerns
Psychological Science and Education (2026) · doi:10.17759/pse.2026310315 · v1.0 |
1.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4328 | Screened Out |
Lexize-SWE: A quick online test to assess print vocabulary knowledge in Swedish
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rk5vp_v1 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4329 | Screened Out |
Academic integrity as a component of preparing higher education students for scientific research in the era of artificial intelligence
Educological discourse (2026) · doi:10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.1 · v1.0 |
1.4 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4330 | Screened Out |
Developing a Pedagogical Electricity and Magnetism Online Concept Test for Pre-service Physics Teachers
COMPTON Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika (2026) · doi:10.30738/cjipf.v12i2.22734 · v1.0 |
3.6 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4331 | Screened Out |
Automated Exam Room Allotment Using Cloud-Serverless Computing
Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (2026) · doi:10.1051/itmconf/20268701007/pdf · v1.0 |
3.8 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4332 | Screened Out |
Enhancing The Accuracy of Academic Document Plagiarism Detection Through Big Data and Similarity Measure Approaches
Journal of Innovation Information Technology and Application (JINITA) (2026) · doi:10.35970/jinita.v8i1.2946 · v1.0 |
3.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4333 | scored |
An Islamic Perspective on Business Ethics and its Principles
International Journal of Innovative Research and Publications (2026) · doi:10.51430/ijirp.2026.613.001 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4334 | Screened Out |
An Exploratory Study on Types of Generative AI Use Ethics Among University Students from the Attitudinal Dimension of AI Literacy
The Korea Association for Care Competency Education (2026) · doi:10.52616/jccer.2026.11.1.5 · v1.0 |
4.1 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4335 | scored |
SYSTEM OF TRAINING TEACHERS OF A MILITARY UNIVERSITY FOR THE USE OF PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGY PARK RESOURCES
The Proceeding Bulletin MILF (2026) · doi:10.56132/2791-3368-2026-2-66-23-33 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4336 | Screened Out |
Problematika Evaluasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab Berbasis Digital
Protasis Jurnal Bahasa Sastra Budaya dan Pengajarannya (2026) · doi:10.55606/protasis.v5i1.270 · v1.0 |
1.0 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4337 | Screened Out |
Students' Confession on the Use of Artificial Intelligence: An English Department Learners' Perceptions
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.21099908 · v1.0 |
1.7 (gemini-3.5-flash-lite) | — |
| 4338 | Screened Out |
La enseñanza del Derecho ante la IA como reto metodológico y ético en la Universidad
Revista Jurídica de Investigación e Innovación Educativa (REJIE Nueva Época) (2026) · doi:10.24310/rejie.34.2026.22639 · v1.0 |
2.4 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4339 | scored |
ChatGPT as an AI Learning Assistant for Enhancing EFL Students’ Writing
Fonologi Jurnal Ilmuan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris (2026) · doi:10.61132/fonologi.v4i2.2752 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4340 | scored |
Scholarly Communication in the Era of Generative AI: A Threat or an Opportunity for Nigerian Academics?
International Journal of Computer Applications (2026) · doi:10.5120/ijca8d59c2bdc286 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4341 | No Fulltext |
A Proof-of-Concept Lightweight MediaPipe and ExtraTrees-Based Framework for Potential Suspicious Gaze and Head-Pose Cue Detection Using the Columbia Gaze Dataset
International Science and Technology Journal (2026) · doi:10.62341/istj-vol38-2-rh64 · v1.0 |
6.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4342 | scored |
Bridging the Gap Between Technology Use and Pedagogical Transformation: A TPACK-SAMR Qualitative Study in Island Contexts
AL-ISHLAH Jurnal Pendidikan (2026) · doi:10.35445/alishlah.v18i2.9959 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4343 | scored |
The Impact of ChatGPT on EFL University Students’ Writing Skills
Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Budaya (2026) · doi:10.55606/jpbb.v5i2.6253 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4344 | Not Article |
Correction to “Using GPT‐4 to Augment Imbalanced Data for Automatic Scoring”
Journal of Educational Measurement (2026) · doi:10.1111/jedm.70033 · v1.0 |
- | — |
| 4345 | scored |
DIPPS: a digital platform for functional assessment and decision support in mental health care
Giornale italiano di medicina del lavoro ed ergonomia (2026) · doi:10.4081/gimle.747 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4346 | Screened Out |
Illusory Competence Inflation as a Mediating Variable in the Relationship Between Cognitive Dependence on Generative Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Identity Distortion Among Postgraduate Students in Saudi Universities (A Mixed-Methods Study)
The International Journal for Research in Education (2026) · doi:10.36771/ijre.50.1.26-pp251-310 · v1.0 |
4.6 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4347 | Screened Out |
AI-assisted translation and psychometric evaluation of the Digital Competencies for Applied Practitioners Scale (DCAPP) in a sample of Swedish psychology master’s students (Preprint)
arXiv/Crossref (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.92332 · v1.0 |
1.9 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4348 | Screened Out |
Artificial intelligence attitudes in higher education: Spanish validation of the AIAS-4 and its associations with well-being and academic AI usage
Current Psychology (2026) · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08566-5 · v1.0 |
3.2 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4349 | scored |
Use of Automation Technologies and Data Mining in Speech Recognition for Autism
Brain and Behavior (2026) · doi:10.1002/brb3.71229 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |
| 4350 | scored |
Explainable neural algorithms for corporate sustainability forecasting: A layered predictive model anchored in executive awareness, green finance, and digital innovation
Innovation and Green Development (2026) · doi:10.1016/j.igd.2026.100335 · v1.0 |
0.0 (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) | — |