The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 30 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
To what extent has the learning progress of school-aged children slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic? A growing number of studies address this question, but findings vary depending on context. Here we conduct a pre-registered systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 42 studies across 15 countries to assess the magnitude of learning deficits during the pandemic. We find a substantial overall learning deficit (Cohen's d = -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.10), which arose early in the pandemic and persists over time. Learning deficits are particularly large among children from low socio-economic backgrounds. They are also larger in maths than in reading and in middle-income countries relative to high-income countries. There is a lack of evidence on learning progress during the pandemic in low-income countries. Future research should address this evidence gap and avoid the common risks of bias that we identify.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Own result · 14 Own method · 6 No basis given · 4 Supported so far · 4 Partly supported · 3 Own interpretation · 2 Supported · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 No full text of the sources · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Under normal circumstances, students generally improve their performance by around 0.4 standard deviations per school year [10][11][12] .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > No evidence of publication bias
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Iqbal, S. A. & Geven, K. Simulating the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures on Schooling and Learning Outcomes: A Set of Global Estimates (World Bank, 2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Empirical methodology (p. 15) assumes gains of 0.2–0.5 standard deviations per grade, and Annex A.1 (p. 44) uses 40 PISA points—about 0.4 standard deviations—as a baseline for upper-middle-income countries. The paper does not present 0.4 as a general annual gain for all students; it says gains vary by country income and cautions that differences between grades cannot automatically be equated with students’ progress over a school year. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R. & Lipsey, M. W. Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. J. Res. Educ. Effectiveness 1, 289–328 (2008). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R. & Lipsey, M. W. Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Dev. Perspect. 2, 172–177 (2008). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In fact, the three largest estimates of learning deficits in our sample are from middle-income countries (Fig. 3) [36][37][38] .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in poorer countries
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Ardington, C., Wills, G. & Kotze, J. COVID-19 learning losses: early grade reading in South Africa. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 86, 102480 (2021). source
- Supportedcites [37] Hevia, F. J., Vergara-Lope, S., Velásquez-Durán, A. & Calderón, D. Estimation of the fundamental learning loss and learning poverty related to COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 88, 102515 (2022). source
The Introduction identifies the gap in learning-loss estimates for middle-income countries and presents this study’s estimate for southern Mexico as addressing it. The Results report substantial learning losses there, including 0.83 SD in mathematics for the lowest-SES group. This source supports its role as one of the cited estimates; the ranking of the three estimates is the citing authors’ comparison in Fig. 3, not a finding attributed to this individual paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [38] Lichand, G., Doria, C. A., Leal-Neto, O. & Fernandes, J. P. C. The impacts of remote learning in secondary education during the pandemic in Brazil. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1079–1086 (2022). source
The Main section identifies Brazil as a middle-income country, and Approach and results reports a substantial learning-loss estimate for Brazilian students. As one of three citations attached to the sentence, this paper supports the Brazilian estimate; the ranking of estimates is the citing authors’ own comparison. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Existing research on the development of learning gaps during summer vacations 17,18 , disruptions to schooling during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and Guinea 19 , and the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan 20 shows that the suspension of face-to-face teaching can increase educational inequality between children from different socio-economic backgrounds.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Socio-economic inequality in education increased
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J. & Greathouse, S. The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: a narrative and meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 227–268 (1996). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Allington, R. L. et al. Addressing summer reading setback among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Read. Psychol. 31, 411–427 (2010). source
- Supportedcites [19] Smith, W. C. Consequences of school closure on access to education: lessons from the 2013–2016 Ebola pandemic. Int. Rev. Educ. 67, 53–78 (2021). source
Citation 19 is attached to the Ebola disruptions in Sierra Leone and Guinea, not the summer-vacation or earthquake research cited separately. In the Discussion (page not supplied), the paper reports increased dropout among secondary-age youth from the poorest families in both countries after the Ebola school shutdowns. Its Conclusion describes closures as disproportionately detrimental to marginalised students. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Available research on summer learning deficits 17,25 , student absenteeism 26,27 and extreme weather events 28 suggests that learning progress in mathematics is more dependent on formal instruction than in reading.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in maths than in reading
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J. & Greathouse, S. The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: a narrative and meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 227–268 (1996). source
- Supportedcites [25] Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R. & Olson, L. S. Schools, achievement, and inequality: a seasonal perspective. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 23, 171–191 (2001). source
The Results (p. 7) report that summer verbal gains generally exceeded quantitative gains and conclude that quantitative learning is more school-dependent than verbal learning, at least in the early grades. This supports the summer-learning portion attributed to this paper; the sentence cites other sources for absenteeism and extreme weather. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [26] Aucejo, E. M. & Romano, T. F. Assessing the effect of school days and absences on test score performance. Econ. Educ. Rev. 55, 70–87 (2016). source
The Baseline Results section states that absences have a greater effect on math than on reading and suggests that children may have more opportunities to develop reading skills outside school. The Introduction likewise reports larger math than reading gains from reducing absences or adding school days. This supports the claim as it relates to the cited absenteeism research. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Low-and middle-income countries were already struggling with a learning crisis before the pandemic.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in poorer countries
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [30] Angrist, N., Djankov, S., Goldberg, P. K. & Patrinos, H. A. Measuring human capital using global learning data. Nature 592, 403–408 (2021). source
The ‘Schooling is not learning’ section calls the gap between rising enrolment and limited learning progress a ‘learning crisis’ and says its analysis demonstrates that pattern globally. The Main section says the gap is acute in developing countries, while the reported learning data cover 2000–2017, before the pandemic. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Torche, F. in Social Mobility in Developing Countries: Concepts, Methods, and Determinants (eds Iversen, V., Krishna, A. & Sen, K.) 139–171 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021). source
- Not matchedcites [32] World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise (World Bank, 2018).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“sending SMS messages with numeracy problems accompanied by short phone calls was found to lead to substantial learning gains in numeracy in Botswana 47 .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [47] Angrist, N., Bergman, P. & Matsheng, M. Experimental evidence on learning using low-tech when school is out. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 941–950 (2022). source
The Population and sampling passage describes weekly SMS numeracy problems supplemented by short phone calls in Botswana. The results report a statistically significant 0.121-standard-deviation gain in average numerical operations for the combined phone-and-SMS group compared with controls. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It suggests that the pandemic has exacerbated educational inequalities between children from different socio-economic backgrounds, which were already large before the pandemic 43,44 .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] Attewell, P. & Newman, K. S. Growing Gaps: Educational Inequality around the World (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010). source
- Partly supportedcites [44] Betthäuser, B. A., Kaiser, C. & Trinh, N. A. Regional variation in inequality of educational opportunity across europe. Socius https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211019890 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Figure 1 note (p. 1) uses data collected from 2002 to 2018 and shows educational-attainment differences by parents’ education, supporting the sentence’s point that inequalities existed before the pandemic. The paper does not examine the pandemic or whether it exacerbated those inequalities. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pooled effect size across all studies is d = -0.14, t(41) = -7.30,two-tailed P = 0.000, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.10.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“We find a substantial overall learning deficit (Cohen's d = -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.10)”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > No evidence of publication bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A large majority of estimates indicate an increase in educational inequality between children from different socio-economic backgrounds.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Socio-economic inequality in education increased
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the available data on school closures lack sufficient depth with respect to variation of school closures within countries, across grade levels and with respect to different modes of instruction, to meaningfully examine this association.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Country Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we excluded studies rated to be at critical risk of bias (n = 19) from all of our analyses and figures, except for Fig. 2a”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] Sterne, J. A. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) recommends excluding studies at critical risk of bias from meta-analyses. It does not report that the citing authors excluded 19 studies from all analyses and figures except Fig. 2a; those details describe the citing authors’ own review. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plainn = 19- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“existing research on teacher strikes in Belgium 13 and Argentina 14 , shortened school years in Germany 15 and disruptions to education during World War II 16 suggests that learning deficits are difficult to compensate and tend to persist in the long run.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits arose early in the pandemic and persist
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Belot, M. & Webbink, D. Do teacher strikes harm educational attainment of students? Labour 24, 391–406 (2010). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Jaume, D. & Willén, A. The long-run effects of teacher strikes: evidence from Argentina. J. Labor Econ. 37, 1097–1139 (2019). source
- Partly supportedcites [15] Cygan-Rehm, K. Are there no wage returns to compulsory schooling in Germany? A reassessment. J. Appl. Econ. 37, 218–223 (2022). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 4) identifies shortened school years in Germany, and the Results (p. 9) report negative effects on wages and schooling duration. Those findings support a lasting adverse outcome, but the paper does not establish that learning deficits persisted or were difficult to compensate. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We assessed the quality of the evidence using an adapted version of the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool 9 .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Sterne, J. A. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 (2016). source
The Summary points identify ROBINS-I as a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. The citation identifies the tool the citing authors say they adapted; their use of an adapted version is their own methodological description. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some studies also reported a higher amount of missing data post-pandemic, again generally without adjustment, and several studies did not report any information on missing data.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which arose early in the pandemic and persists over time.”
- Also stated in: § Learning deficits arose early in the pandemic and persist · hedged
“The figure suggests that learning deficits opened up early in the pandemic and have neither closed nor substantially widened since then.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Learning deficits arose early in the pandemic and persist · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“common sources of potential bias were confounding, sample selection and missing data.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several studies found evidence of selection bias, often with students from a low socio-economic background or schools in deprived areas being under-represented after (as compared with before) the pandemic, but this was not always adjusted for.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a strong over-representation of studies from high-income countries, a dearth of studies from middle-income countries and no studies from low-income countries.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The geographic reach of evidence is limited
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall risk of bias was considered 'low' for 15% of studies, 'moderate' for 30% of studies, 'serious' for 25% of studies and 'critical' for 30% of studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This holds for both maths and reading, across primary and secondary education, at each stage of the pandemic, and independently of how socio-economic background is measured.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Socio-economic inequality in education increased
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies provide multiple estimates of COVID-19 learning deficits, separately for maths and reading and for different school grades.The number of estimates (n = 291) is therefore larger than the number of included studies (n = 42).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Results
plainn = 291- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis examine children aged between 5 and 18.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“including studies rated to be at critical risk of bias (n = 19 out of a total of n = 61 studies shown in this figure)”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Data analysis
plainn = 61- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The formal database search process identified 15 eligible studies.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The citation and preprint hand searches allowed us to identify 27 additional eligible studies, resulting in a total of 42 studies.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Results
plainn = 42- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis generally did not disaggregate effect sizes by sex or gender.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About half of the estimates (n = 149) are from the United States, 58 are from the UK, a further 70 are from other European countries and the remaining 14 estimates are from Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and South Africa.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The geographic reach of evidence is limited
plainn = 149- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference is statistically significant and robust to dropping estimates from individual countries (Supplementary Fig. 9).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in maths than in reading
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we conduct a pre-registered systematic review, quality appraisal and meta-analysis of 42 studies across 15 countries to assess the magnitude of learning deficits during the pandemic.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we replicate all our results excluding studies deemed to be at serious risk of bias.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We prospectively registered a protocol of our systematic review and meta-analysis in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021249944) on 19 April 2021”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Pre-registration
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Acknowledgements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In line with ROBINS-I guidance, studies rated to be at critical risk of bias were excluded from all analyses and other figures in this article and in the Supplementary Information (including b).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Data analysis
plainn = 19- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis based on the inclusion criteria described in the pre-registered study protocol”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data extraction was performed by B.A.B. and validated independently by A.M.B.-M., with discrepancies resolved through discussion and by conferring with P.E.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Schools in low-and middle-income countries have not only been closed for longer, but have also had fewer resources to facilitate remote learning 33,34 .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in poorer countries
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and Beyond (United Nations, 2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [34] One Year into COVID-19 Education Disruption: Where Do We Stand? (UNESCO, 2021).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All studies were double screened by the first two authors.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Results
plainn = 42- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All code needed to replicate our findings is available on the Open Science Framework repository (https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/u8gaz).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the economic resources, availability of digital learning equipment and ability of children, parents, teachers and governments to support learning from home are likely to be lower in low-and middle-income countries 35 .”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Learning deficits are larger in poorer countries
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35] Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Geven, K. & Iqbal, S. A. Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: a set of global estimates. World Bank Res. Observer 36, 1–40 (2021).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reported estimates, CIs and statistical significance tests of these bivariate associations are based on common-effects models with standard errors clustered by study, and two-sided tests.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Data synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The distribution of the data is normal.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A.M.B.-M.and B.A.B. performed the risk-of-bias assessments, which were independently checked by the respective other author.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > The quality of evidence is mixed
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All titles and abstracts identified in our search were double-screened using the Rayyan online application (last accessed on August 8, 2022).”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Software and code
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data extraction was performed by the first author and validated independently by the second author, with discrepancies resolved through discussion and by conferring with the third author.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused one of the largest disruptions to learning in history.
“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to one of the largest disruptions to learning in history.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pandemic's consequences for children's out-of-school learning environment, mental health, and physical health compound the effect of limited face-to-face instruction.
“The effect of limited face-to-face instruction is compounded by the pandemic's consequences for children's out-of-school learning environment, as well as their mental and physical health.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The COVID-19 learning deficit will affect children's life chances through education and labour market prospects and have societal implications for growth, prosperity, and social cohesion.
“The COVID-19 learning deficit is likely to affect children's life chances through their education and labour market prospects.At the societal level, it can have important implications for growth, prosperity and social cohesion.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The distribution of the data is normal.
“With respect to statistical tests reported, the data distribution was assumed to be normal, but this was not formally tested.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“After a period dominated by remote and hybrid teaching models due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a return to in-person, group learning activities, with early indications of better academic outcomes in students at all education levels (23–28).”
From Global Health Trade Summit: an AI-enhanced simulation of international trade and global health for undergraduate public health education (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, there are several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and these suggest an average learning loss attributable to COVID-19 school closures of 0.17 of a standard deviation—that is, at least one-third of a year’s worth of learning16–20.”
From COVID-19, school closures, and student learning outcomes. New global evidence from PISA (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The COVID-19 pandemic had substantial negative effects on the average American student's achievement (Betthäuser et al., 2023;Cohodes et al., 2022).”
From Unequal Learning Loss: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Academic Growth of Learners at the Tails of the Achievement Distribution (2025) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This activity was designed in the post-pandemic era, where residual complexities from pandemic-era education must be taken into account (24, 91).”
From Global Health Trade Summit: an AI-enhanced simulation of international trade and global health for undergraduate public health education (2025) · cites this paper as [24]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, our results are similar to what systematic reviews are finding learning16–20,44,45.”
From COVID-19, school closures, and student learning outcomes. New global evidence from PISA (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“The differences in learning deficits between countries are striking, and further research is needed to understand why some countries have experienced greater deficits than others.”
From School closure policies and student reading achievement: evidence across countries (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“An emerging body of literature has documented significant declines in student academic performance following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with varying levels of reported learning deficits experienced across countries (e.g., Betthäuser et al., 2023;Di Pietro, 2023).”
From School closure policies and student reading achievement: evidence across countries (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Drawing on over 45 individual studies from 18 countries, both meta-analyses revealed a significant decline in academic achievement following the outbreak of the pandemic, with similar mean effect sizes of Cohen's d = -0.14 and -0.17.”
From School closure policies and student reading achievement: evidence across countries (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Evidence showing that other subjects (i.e., mathematics) were impacted more by the pandemic than reading makes it important to note that the true impact of the school closure policies may be larger than the effects estimated in this study (Betthäuser et al., 2023;Di Pietro, 2023).”
From School closure policies and student reading achievement: evidence across countries (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“With an international standard deviation of 100, this would be an average effect of 0.15 SD which aligns remarkably well with results from several meta-analyses (e.g., Storey & Zhang, 2021;König & Frey, 2022;Betthäuser et al., 2023;Di Pietro, 2023).”
From School closure policies and student reading achievement: evidence across countries (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“For instance, while in Betthäuser et al. (2023) about 71.1% of the effect sizes are derived from these studies, in our paper the corresponding figure is approximately 33.9%.”
From The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al. (2023)
In the citing paper
“our findings from the RVE analysis are broadly consistent with those from previous meta-analyses. Storey and Zhang (2021a) concluded that due to Covid-19 students lost, on average, 0.15 standard deviations of learning, König and Frey (2022) found average losses of 0.175 standard deviations, and Betthäuser et al. (2023) estimated average losses at 0.14 standard deviations.”
From The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Betthäuser et al. (2023)
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentQ(41) = 112817.79reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001
“Q(41) = 112,817.79,p = .000”
- Consistentt(41) = -7.3reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001
“t(41) = -7.30,p = .000”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Results
“we conducted two full forward and backward citation searches of all included studies on 15 February 2022, and on 8 August 2022.”
§ A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic > Search strategy and study identification
“we conducted two forward and backward citation searches of all eligible studies identified in the above steps, on 14 February 2022, and on 8 August 2022”
Citations
Cites
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022376118 · Cited by 1,848
Self-citationLearning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic
Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2020) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/ve4z7 · Cited by 1,739
The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta-Analytic Review
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543066003227 · Cited by 991
Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes in Research
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x · Cited by 950
Effects of COVID-19-Related School Closures on Student Achievement-A Systematic Review
Hammerstein, S., König, C., Dreisörner, T., & Frey, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289 · Cited by 588
Schools, Achievement, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perspective
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737023002171 · Cited by 575
The effect of school closures on standardised student test outcomes
Maldonado, J. E., & De Witte, K. (2022) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.3754 · Cited by 499
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Geven, K. & Iqbal, S. A. Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: a set of global estimates. World Bank Res. Observer 36, 1–40 (2021).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis
Di Pietro, G. (2023) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100530 · Cited by 173
“Consistent with the findings of Betth ¨ auser et al. (2023), our results suggest that pandemic-related learning delays are similar across primary and secondary school students.”
InfluentialArtificial intelligence for low income countries
Khan, M. S., Umer, H., & Faruqe, F. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03947-w · Cited by 250
“LICs, already challenged by inadequate resources and infrastructure, have experienced aggravated education setbacks (Betthäuser et al., 2023).”
Golden, A. R., Srisarajivakul, E., Hasselle, A. J., Pfund, R. A., & Knox, J. L. (2023) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101632 · Cited by 130
Mustafa, F., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Gao, X. A. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102380 · Cited by 215
Lewalter, D. (2023) · Waxmann Verlag GmbH eBooks · doi:10.31244/9783830998488 · Cited by 188
Metadata
- Authors
- Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P.
- Affiliations
- Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (FR)
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Betthäuser, Bastian A.
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2023-01-30
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 375-385
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4318486553
- Cited by
- 568
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 102 · 2025: 145 · 2024: 180 · 2023: 124
- FWCI
- 33.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Carlsbergfondet (CF19-0102)
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0091, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02, ANR-18-IDEX-0001)
- Leverhulme Trust Large Centre Grant; Swedish Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
- Social Sciences › Development › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, learning deficits, school-aged children, academic performance, socioeconomic disparities, mathematics learning, reading achievement, low-income countries, middle-income countries, high-income countries, learning loss
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Child, Humans, Income, Learning, Pandemics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
