Deep learning in the marking of medical student short answer question examinations: Student perceptions and pilot accuracy assessment
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Machine learning has previously been applied to text analysis. There is limited data regarding the acceptability or accuracy of such applications in medical education. This project examined medical student opinion regarding computer-based marking and evaluated the accuracy of deep learning (DL), a subtype of machine learning, in the scoring of medical short answer questions (SAQs). Methods: Fourth- and fifth-year medical students undertook an anonymised online examination. Prior to the examination, students completed a survey gauging their opinion on computer-based marking. Questions were marked by humans, and then a DL analysis was conducted using convolutional neural networks. In the DL analysis, following preprocessing, data were split into a training dataset (on which models were developed using 10-fold cross-validation) and a test dataset (on which performance analysis was conducted). Results: One hundred and eighty-one students completed the examination (participation rate 59.0%). While students expressed concern regarding the accuracy of computer-based marking, the majority of students agreed that computer marking would be more objective than human marking (67.0%) and reported they would not object to computer-based marking (55.5%). Regarding automated marking of SAQs, for 1-mark questions, there were consistently high classification accuracies (mean accuracy 0.98). For more complex 2-mark and 3-mark SAQs, in which multiclass classification was required, accuracy was lower (mean 0.65 and 0.59, respectively). Conclusions: Medical students may be supportive of computer-based marking due to its objectivity. DL has the potential to provide accurate marking of written questions, however further research into DL marking of medical examinations is required.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
ML algorithms have demonstrated high reliability in grading short-answer questions.
“ML algorithms have demonstrated high reliability in grading short-answer questions”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [140]
The Discussion says ML algorithms have shown high reliability when marking 1-mark very short answer questions (VSAQs). The DL analysis reports mean test accuracy of 0.98 for those questions, but only 0.65 and 0.59 for 2-mark and 3-mark short-answer questions. The claim omits this important restriction; page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn one study, 67% of students viewed ML grading of short-answer questions favorably.
“in one study, 67% of students viewed this approach favorably [140].”
From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [140]
In “Student opinion regarding computer-based marking,” 67.0% agreed that computer marking would be more objective than human marking. That is a favorable view of one aspect, but it is not the percentage who viewed ML grading favorably overall: 55.5% said they would not object to computer marking, while 56.6% doubted its accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 7
- Authors
- Hollis-Sando, L., Pugh, C., Franke, K., Zerner, T., Tan, Y., Carneiro, G., Van den Hengel, A., Symonds, I., Duggan, P., & Bacchi, S.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
- Venue
- Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal
- Publisher
- University of Otago Library
- Published
- 2023-03-31
- Pages
- 38-48
- ISSN
- 1442-1100 (ISSN-L)
- 2204-7662
- OpenAlex
- W4375852442
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Focus on Health Professional Education A Multi-Professional Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- automated marking, short-answer questions, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, medical students, student perceptions, computer-based testing
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.
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