scholarly journals A Method for Cheating Indication in Unproctored On-Line Exams

Sensors ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 654
Author(s):  
Dan Komosny ◽  
Saeed Ur Rehman

COVID-19 has disrupted every field of life and education is not immune to it. Student learning and examinations moved on-line on a few weeks notice, which has created a large workload for academics to grade the assessments and manually detect students’ dishonesty. In this paper, we propose a method to automatically indicate cheating in unproctored on-line exams, when somebody else other than the legitimate student takes the exam. The method is based on the analysis of the student’s on-line traces, which are logged by distance education systems. We work with customized IP geolocation and other data to derive the student’s cheating risk score. We apply the method to approx. 3600 students in 22 courses, where the partial or final on-line exams were unproctored. The found cheating risk scores are presented along with examples of indicated cheatings. The method can be used to select students for knowledge re-validation, or to compare student cheating across courses, age groups, countries, and universities. We compared student cheating risk scores between four academic terms, including two terms of university closure due to COVID-19.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Goodson ◽  
Susan Miertschin ◽  
Barbara Stewart ◽  
Marcella Norwood ◽  
Luces Faulkenberry

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Estiri ◽  
Zachary H. Strasser ◽  
Jeffy G. Klann ◽  
Pourandokht Naseri ◽  
Kavishwar B. Wagholikar ◽  
...  

AbstractThis study aims to predict death after COVID-19 using only the past medical information routinely collected in electronic health records (EHRs) and to understand the differences in risk factors across age groups. Combining computational methods and clinical expertise, we curated clusters that represent 46 clinical conditions as potential risk factors for death after a COVID-19 infection. We trained age-stratified generalized linear models (GLMs) with component-wise gradient boosting to predict the probability of death based on what we know from the patients before they contracted the virus. Despite only relying on previously documented demographics and comorbidities, our models demonstrated similar performance to other prognostic models that require an assortment of symptoms, laboratory values, and images at the time of diagnosis or during the course of the illness. In general, we found age as the most important predictor of mortality in COVID-19 patients. A history of pneumonia, which is rarely asked in typical epidemiology studies, was one of the most important risk factors for predicting COVID-19 mortality. A history of diabetes with complications and cancer (breast and prostate) were notable risk factors for patients between the ages of 45 and 65 years. In patients aged 65–85 years, diseases that affect the pulmonary system, including interstitial lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and a smoking history, were important for predicting mortality. The ability to compute precise individual-level risk scores exclusively based on the EHR is crucial for effectively allocating and distributing resources, such as prioritizing vaccination among the general population.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 955
Author(s):  
Ovidiu Mitu ◽  
Adrian Crisan ◽  
Simon Redwood ◽  
Ioan-Elian Cazacu-Davidescu ◽  
Ivona Mitu ◽  
...  

Background: The current cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention guidelines prioritize risk stratification by using clinical risk scores. However, subclinical atherosclerosis may rest long term undetected. This study aimed to evaluate multiple subclinical atherosclerosis parameters in relation to several CV risk scores in asymptomatic individuals. Methods: A cross-sectional, single-center study included 120 asymptomatic CVD subjects. Four CVD risk scores were computed: SCORE, Framingham, QRISK, and PROCAM. Subclinical atherosclerosis has been determined by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), pulse wave velocity (PWV), aortic and brachial augmentation indexes (AIXAo, respectively AIXbr), aortic systolic blood pressure (SBPao), and ankle-brachial index (ABI). Results: The mean age was 52.01 ± 10.73 years. For cIMT—SCORE was more sensitive; for PWV—Framingham score was more sensitive; for AIXbr—QRISK and PROCAM were more sensitive while for AIXao—QRISK presented better results. As for SBPao—SCORE presented more sensitive results. However, ABI did not correlate with any CVD risk score. Conclusions: All four CV risk scores are associated with markers of subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic population, except for ABI, with specific particularities for each CVD risk score. Moreover, we propose specific cut-off values of CV risk scores that may indicate the need for subclinical atherosclerosis assessment.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirak Shah ◽  
Thomas Murray ◽  
Jessica Schultz ◽  
Ranjit John ◽  
Cindy M. Martin ◽  
...  

AbstractThe EUROMACS Right-Sided Heart Failure Risk Score was developed to predict right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. The predictive ability of the EUROMACS score has not been tested in other cohorts. We performed a single center analysis of a continuous-flow (CF) LVAD cohort (n = 254) where we calculated EUROMACS risk scores and assessed for right ventricular heart failure after LVAD implantation. Thirty-nine percent of patients (100/254) had post-operative RVF, of which 9% (23/254) required prolonged inotropic support and 5% (12/254) required RVAD placement. For patients who developed RVF after LVAD implantation, there was a 45% increase in the hazards of death on LVAD support (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.98–2.2, p = 0.066). Two variables in the EUROMACS score (Hemoglobin and Right Atrial Pressure to Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure ratio) were not predictive of RVF in our cohort. Overall, the EUROMACS score had poor external discrimination in our cohort with area under the curve of 58% (95% CI 52–66%). Further work is necessary to enhance our ability to predict RVF after LVAD implantation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Radenkovic ◽  
S.C Chawla ◽  
G Botta ◽  
A Boli ◽  
M.B Banach ◽  
...  

Abstract   The two leading causes of mortality worldwide are cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. The annual total cost of CVD and cancer is an estimated $844.4 billion in the US and is projected to double by 2030. Thus, there has been an increased shift to preventive medicine to improve health outcomes and development of risk scores, which allow early identification of individuals at risk to target personalised interventions and prevent disease. Our aim was to define a Risk Score R(x) which, given the baseline characteristics of a given individual, outputs the relative risk for composite CVD, cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. A non-linear model was used to calculate risk scores based on the participants of the UK Biobank (= 502548). The model used parameters including patient characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity), baseline conditions, lifestyle factors of diet and physical activity, blood pressure, metabolic markers and advanced lipid variables, including ApoA and ApoB and lipoprotein(a), as input. The risk score was defined by normalising the risk function by a fixed value, the average risk of the training set. To fit the non-linear model >400,000 participants were used as training set and >45,000 participants were used as test set for validation. The exponent of risk function was represented as a multilayer neural network. This allowed capturing interdependent behaviour of covariates, training a single model for all outcomes, and preserving heterogeneity of the groups, which is in contrast to CoxPH models which are traditionally used in risk scores and require homogeneous groups. The model was trained over 60 epochs and predictive performance was determined by the C-index with standard errors and confidence intervals estimated with bootstrap sampling. By inputing the variables described, one can obtain personalised hazard ratios for 3 major outcomes of CVD, cancer and all-cause mortality. Therefore, an individual with a risk Score of e.g. 1.5, at any time he/she has 50% more chances than average of experiencing the corresponding event. The proposed model showed the following discrimination, for risk of CVD (C-index = 0.8006), cancer incidence (C-index = 0.6907), and all-cause mortality (C-index = 0.7770) on the validation set. The CVD model is particularly strong (C-index >0.8) and is an improvement on a previous CVD risk prediction model also based on classical risk factors with total cholesterol and HDL-c on the UK Biobank data (C-index = 0.7444) published last year (Welsh et al. 2019). Unlike classically-used CoxPH models, our model considers correlation of variables as shown by the table of the values of correlation in Figure 1. This is an accurate model that is based on the most comprehensive set of patient characteristics and biomarkers, allowing clinicians to identify multiple targets for improvement and practice active preventive cardiology in the era of precision medicine. Figure 1. Correlation of variables in the R(x) Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e001942
Author(s):  
Xu Yang ◽  
Ying Hu ◽  
Keyan Yang ◽  
Dongxu Wang ◽  
Jianzhen Lin ◽  
...  

BackgroundThis study was designed to screen potential biomarkers in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for predicting the clinical outcome of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy in advanced hepatobiliary cancers.MethodsThree cohorts including 187 patients with hepatobiliary cancers were recruited from clinical trials at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Forty-three patients received combination therapy of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor with lenvatinib (ICI cohort 1), 108 patients received ICI-based therapy (ICI cohort 2) and 36 patients received non-ICI therapy (non-ICI cohort). The plasma cfDNA and blood cell DNA mutation profiles were assessed to identify efficacy biomarkers by a cancer gene-targeted next-generation sequencing panel.ResultsBased on the copy number variations (CNVs) in plasma cfDNA, the CNV risk score model was constructed to predict survival by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression methods. The results of the two independent ICI-based therapy cohorts showed that patients with lower CNV risk scores had longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than those with high CNV risk scores (log-rank p<0.01). In the non-ICI cohort, the CNV risk score was not associated with PFS or OS. Furthermore, the results indicated that 53% of patients with low CNV risk scores achieved durable clinical benefit; in contrast, 88% of patients with high CNV risk scores could not benefit from combination therapy (p<0.05).ConclusionsThe CNVs in plasma cfDNA could predict the clinical outcome of the combination therapy of PD-1 inhibitor with lenvatinib and other ICI-based therapies in hepatobiliary cancers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly A. Conran ◽  
Zhuqing Shi ◽  
William Kyle Resurreccion ◽  
Rong Na ◽  
Brian T. Helfand ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Genome-wide association studies have identified thousands of disease-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A subset of these SNPs may be additively combined to generate genetic risk scores (GRSs) that confer risk for a specific disease. Although the clinical validity of GRSs to predict risk of specific diseases has been well established, there is still a great need to determine their clinical utility by applying GRSs in primary care for cancer risk assessment and targeted intervention. Methods This clinical study involved 281 primary care patients without a personal history of breast, prostate or colorectal cancer who were 40–70 years old. DNA was obtained from a pre-existing biobank at NorthShore University HealthSystem. GRSs for colorectal cancer and breast or prostate cancer were calculated and shared with participants through their primary care provider. Additional data was gathered using questionnaires as well as electronic medical record information. A t-test or Chi-square test was applied for comparison of demographic and key clinical variables among different groups. Results The median age of the 281 participants was 58 years and the majority were female (66.6%). One hundred one (36.9%) participants received 2 low risk scores, 99 (35.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 average risk score, 37 (13.2%) received 1 low risk and 1 high risk score, 23 (8.2%) received 2 average risk scores, 21 (7.5%) received 1 average risk and 1 high risk score, and no one received 2 high risk scores. Before receiving GRSs, younger patients and women reported significantly more worry about risk of developing cancer. After receiving GRSs, those who received at least one high GRS reported significantly more worry about developing cancer. There were no significant differences found between gender, age, or GRS with regards to participants’ reported optimism about their future health neither before nor after receiving GRS results. Conclusions Genetic risk scores that quantify an individual’s risk of developing breast, prostate and colorectal cancers as compared with a race-defined population average risk have potential clinical utility as a tool for risk stratification and to guide cancer screening in a primary care setting.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110185
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Nanda ◽  
Audry S. Chacin Suarez ◽  
Loren Toussaint ◽  
Ann Vincent ◽  
Karen M. Fischer ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of the present study was to investigate body mass index, multi-morbidity, and COVID-19 Risk Score as predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Patients Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2020 and May 23, 2020; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens. Measures Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The data included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, medications (active COVID-19 agents), weight and height (from which the Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated, history of smoking, and comorbid conditions to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) multi-morbidity score. An additional COVID-19 Risk Score was also included. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, and death. Results Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact on mortality or hospital admission. Age, sex, and race (white/Latino, white/non-Latino, other, did not disclose) were adjusted for in the model. Patients with higher COVID-19 Risk Scores had a significantly higher likelihood of being at least admitted to the hospital (HR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.50; P < .001), or experiencing death or inpatient admission (includes ICU admissions) (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.42; P = .028). Age was the only statistically significant demographic predictor, but obesity was not a significant predictor of any of the outcomes. Conclusion Age and COVID-19 Risk Scores were significant predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further work should examine the properties of the COVID-19 Risk Factors Scale.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204201882097419
Author(s):  
Nienke M. A. Idzerda ◽  
Sok Cin Tye ◽  
Dick de Zeeuw ◽  
Hiddo J. L. Heerspink

Background: Risk factor-based equations are used to predict risk of kidney disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes order to guide treatment decisions. It is, however, unknown whether these models can also be used to predict the effects of drugs on clinical outcomes. Methods: The previously developed Parameter Response Efficacy (PRE) score, which integrates multiple short-term drug effects, was first compared with the existing risk scores, Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) and The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) renal risk score, in its performance to predict end-stage renal disease (ESRD; KFRE) and doubling of serum creatinine or ESRD (ADVANCE). Second, changes in the risk scores were compared after 6 months’ treatment to predict the long-term effects of losartan on these renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Results: The KFRE, ADVANCE and PRE scores showed similarly good performance in predicting renal risk. However, for prediction of the effect of losartan, the KFRE risk score predicted a relative risk change in the occurrence of ESRD of 3.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) −5 to 12], whereas the observed risk change was −28.8% (95% CI −42.0 to −11.5). For the composite endpoint of doubling of serum creatinine or ESRD, the ADVANCE score predicted a risk change of −12.4% (95% CI −17 to −7), which underestimated the observed risk change −21.8% (95% CI −34 to −6). The PRE score predicted renal risk changes that were close to the observed risk changes with losartan treatment [−24.0% (95% CI −30 to −17) and −22.6% (95% CI −23 to −16) for ESRD and the composite renal outcome, respectively]. Conclusion: A drug response score such as the PRE score may assist in improving clinical decision making and implement precision medicine strategies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Magdalena I. Tolea ◽  
Jaeyeong Heo ◽  
Stephanie Chrisphonte ◽  
James E. Galvin

Background: Although an efficacious dementia-risk score system, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia (CAIDE) was derived using midlife risk factors in a population with low educational attainment that does not reflect today’s US population, and requires laboratory biomarkers, which are not always available. Objective: Develop and validate a modified CAIDE (mCAIDE) system and test its ability to predict presence, severity, and etiology of cognitive impairment in older adults. Methods: Population consisted of 449 participants in dementia research (N = 230; community sample; 67.9±10.0 years old, 29.6%male, 13.7±4.1 years education) or receiving dementia clinical services (N = 219; clinical sample; 74.3±9.8 years old, 50.2%male, 15.5±2.6 years education). The mCAIDE, which includes self-reported and performance-based rather than blood-derived measures, was developed in the community sample and tested in the independent clinical sample. Validity against Framingham, Hachinski, and CAIDE risk scores was assessed. Results: Higher mCAIDE quartiles were associated with lower performance on global and domain-specific cognitive tests. Each one-point increase in mCAIDE increased the odds of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by up to 65%, those of AD by 69%, and those for non-AD dementia by >  85%, with highest scores in cases with vascular etiologies. Being in the highest mCAIDE risk group improved ability to discriminate dementia from MCI and controls and MCI from controls, with a cut-off of ≥7 points offering the highest sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Conclusion: mCAIDE is a robust indicator of cognitive impairment in community-dwelling seniors, which can discriminate well between dementia severity including MCI versus controls. The mCAIDE may be a valuable tool for case ascertainment in research studies, helping flag primary care patients for cognitive testing, and identify those in need of lifestyle interventions for symptomatic control.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document