Characteristics of the study participants
The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented(Table 1) . In this study, we excluded a total of 23 participants with incomplete data, a total of 91 participants were enrolled in this study, with 62 participants who underwent anti-involution training showing no significant improvement in critical thinking skills and 29 participants showing significant improvement. Detailed data for 91 participants can be found in Supplementary Data S1. When comparing the non-significant improvement group to the significant improvement group, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in several critical thinking aspects, including CTDI-CV total score before training (p = 0.002), truth-seeking (p = 0.007), analyticity (p = 0.008), systematicity (p = 0.015), self-confidence in critical thinking (p = 0.047), inquisitiveness (p = 0.027), and cognitive maturity (p = 0.047). However, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in terms of profession (p = 0.378), gender (p = 0.953), and open-mindedness (p = 0.185).
Table 1 Characteristics in non-significantly improved group and significantly improved group
Variable
|
non-significantly improved group significantly (n=62)
|
significantly improved group(n=29)
|
p
|
|
profession,n(%)
|
|
|
|
|
Stomatology
|
24(38.710%)
|
10(34.483%)
|
0.378b
|
|
Nursing
|
36(58.065%)
|
16(55.172%)
|
|
|
Other
|
2(3.226%)
|
3(10.345%)
|
|
|
gender
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
11(17.742%)
|
5(17.241%)
|
0.953b
|
|
female
|
51(82.258%)
|
24(82.759%)
|
|
|
CTDI-CV total score before training, median [IQR]
|
263.00[249.00,279.00]
|
244.00[212.00,256.00]
|
0.002a
|
|
truth-seeking, median [IQR]
|
39.00[35.00,41.00]
|
33.00[30.00,40.00]
|
0.007a
|
analyticity, median [IQR]
|
35.00[32.00,39.00]
|
31.00[28.00,36.00]
|
0.008a
|
systematicity, median [IQR]
|
37.00[35.00,40.00]
|
33.00[30.00,37.00]
|
0.015a
|
self-confidence in critical thinking, median [IQR]
|
35.00[31.00,40.00]
|
30.00[25.00,37.00]
|
0.047a
|
inquisitiveness, median [IQR]
|
37.00[31.00,40.00]
|
33.00[27.00,38.00]
|
0.027a
|
cognitive maturity, median [IQR]
|
40.00[36.00,47.00]
|
37.00[33.00,42.00]
|
0.047a
|
pa values are calculated from the Mann-Whitney U test, and pb was obtained by x2-tests. p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. Numbers in bold mean statistical significance.
The effects of anti-involution training on the enhancement of critical thinking among young healthcare professionals in dental outpatient clinics
The effects of anti-involution training on the enhancement of critical thinking among young healthcare professionals in dental outpatient clinics are presented(Table 2 and Fig. 1). The results reveal that, among the seven characteristics of critical thinking, there is a slight decrease in the average score of self-confidence in critical thinking. The average scores of the remaining six characteristics and the total score have all shown slight improvements. Notably, there is a statistically significant difference in the average score increase for cognitive maturity, which is 3.978±-0.014 (P=0.004). Additionally, the average score increase for the total score is 11.813±6.752 (P=0.001), signifying a statistically significant difference.
Table 2 Scores of each critical thinking feature before and after anti-involution training(±s)
Variable
|
before anti-involution training (n=91)
|
After anti-involution training(n=91)
|
Increased scores
|
P
|
truth-seeking
|
36.989±6.918
|
38.132±6.843
|
1.143±-0.075
|
0.287
|
open-mindedness
|
37.308±6.458
|
38.341±6.469
|
1.033±0.011
|
0.343
|
analyticity
|
33.681±5.88
|
34.593±5.89
|
0.912±0.01
|
0.277
|
systematicity
|
35.198±7.14
|
36.121±7.082
|
0.923±-0.058
|
0.388
|
self-confidence in critical thinking
|
33.286±7.605
|
31.275±7.603
|
-2.011±-0.002
|
0.075
|
inquisitiveness
|
33.835±8.148
|
34.802±8.133
|
0.967±-0.015
|
0.427
|
cognitive maturity
|
39.637±8.846
|
43.615±8.833
|
3.978±-0.014
|
0.004**
|
CTDI-CV total scores
|
249.934±39.513
|
261.747±46.266
|
11.813±6.752
|
0.001***
|
* * * , * * , * represent 1% , 5% , 10% significance levels respectively. Numbers in bold mean statistical significance.
Correlation analysis of the effects of anti-involution training on critical thinking and propensity indicators among young healthcare professionals in dental outpatient clinics
As shown in Table 3, there is a negative correlation between truth-seeking, analyticity, systematicity, self-confidence in critical thinking, inquisitiveness, cognitive maturity, and CTDI-CV total scores with the effects of anti-involution training on the enhancement of critical thinking (truth-seeking: r = -0.284, p < 0.05; analyticity: r = -0.287, p < 0.05; systematicity: r = -0.258, p < 0.05; self-confidence in critical thinking: r = -0.210, p < 0.005; inquisitiveness: r = -0.234, p < 0.05; cognitive maturity: r = -0.210, p < 0.05; CTDI-CV total scores: r = -0.327, p > 0.05). However, there is no correlation between profession, gender, open-mindedness, and the effects of de-individuation training on the enhancement of critical thinking (profession: r = 0.078, p > 0.05; gender: r = -0.006, p > 0.05; open-mindedness: r =- 0.140, p > 0.05).
Table 3 The Spearman's association analysis among Tendency indicators and the effects of anti-involution training on critical thinking
Variable
|
The effects of anti-involution training on the enhancement of critical thinking
|
r
|
p
|
profession
|
0.078
|
0.461
|
gender
|
-0.006
|
0.954
|
truth-seeking
|
-0.284
|
0.006**
|
open-mindedness
|
-0.140
|
0.185
|
analyticity
|
-0.278
|
0.008**
|
systematicity
|
-0.258
|
0.014**
|
self-confidence in critical thinking
|
-0.210
|
0.046**
|
inquisitiveness
|
-0.234
|
0.026**
|
cognitive maturity
|
-0.210
|
0.046**
|
CTDI-CV total scores
|
-0.327
|
0.002**
|
The p-values were calculated using the Spearman correlation analysis.* * * , * * , * represent 1% , 5% , 10% significance levels respectively. Numbers in bold mean statistical significance.
Identifying predictors
LASSO regression analysis was conducted on the remaining independent variables with a tophus as the dependent variable (Fig. 2). LASSO can compress variable coefficients to prevent overfitting and solve severe collinearity problems (F. Yi et al., 2023). The results showed that (lambda with minimum mean square error = 0.06) 10 independent variables were reduced to 4, including truth-seeking, analyticity, and inquisitiveness(Fig. 2a,b)
Comprehensive Analysis of Classified Multi-Mode
Multiple ML models were utilized for data sample classification: XGBoost, logistic regression, LightGBM, Random Forest, AdaBoost, KNN, SVM, GNB, and MLP. A 5-fold cross-validation approach was performed to validate all models. The AUC value was employed to evaluate model predictions (Obuchowski & Bullen, 2018). Results indicated that Random Forest, XGBoost, and AdaBoost exhibited superior performance on the training set, whereas Random Forest, KNN, and LightGBM achieved the highest performance on the validation set (Fig. 3a,b);see more details in Supplemental Table S1and Table S2.The AUC value primarily assesses the predictive accuracy of the models without providing information on their clinical utility or preferences (Muschelli, 2020; Obuchowski & Bullen, 2018). Therefore, we analyzed the PR curve, calibration curve, and DCA. The DCA curve illustrated the favorable clinical applicability of the Random Forest model (Fig. 3c). The calibration curve suggested that the Random Forest and KNN models provided more accurate predictions (Fig. 3d). The Random Forest model displayed exceptional performance in the training and validation sets, generating the highest average precision (AP) value on the validation set (Fig. 3e,f). Considering all factors, the comprehensive analysis suggests that Random Forest can be considered the optimal model.
The best model construction and evaluation
The Random Forest model was trained using the training set with 5-fold cross-validation. The results revealed that the average AUC for the training set was 0.912 (0.843-0.980), while for the validation set, it was 0.889 (0.740-0.990). The AUC for the test set was 0.868 (0.731-1.000) (Fig. 4a-c);see more details in Supplemental Table S3.Considering that the performance of the validation set did not exceed or differ by less than 10% from the test set based on the AUC metric, it can be concluded that the model was successfully fitted. The calibration curve further demonstrated that the Random Forest model was accurate and predictive (Fig. 4d). These outcomes suggest that the Random Forest model can be utilized for classification modeling tasks on the dataset.
The SHAP to Interpret ML model
We employed SHAP to interpret the model to provide an intuitive explanation of the selected variables.
The distribution of results for each participant is illustrated (Fig. 5a).In each feature importance line, different colored dots represent the attribution of results by all participants. Red dots represent high likelihood values, while blue dots represent low likelihood values. The variables inquisitiveness, truth-seeking, and analyticity ability of participants before anti-involution training are all negatively correlated with the results.Three risk factors were ranked by evaluating the average absolute SHAP values(Fig. 5b). The x-axis represents the importance of the predictive model measured by the SHAP values. The feature importance of the Random Forest model, from high to low, was observed as inquisitiveness, truth-seeking, and analyticity.
Furthermore, we provide two typical examples to illustrate the Interpretability of the model. For one participant, there was no significant improvement observed in critical thinking, as indicated by a lower SHAP prediction score of 0.15 (Fig. 5c).In contrast, another participant exhibited significant improvement in critical thinking, as evidenced by a higher SHAP score of 0.95 (Fig. 5d).