Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23526417›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2013

On self-propagating methodological flaws in performance normalization for strength and power sports.

Ognjen Arandjelović

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ognjen ArandjelovićCentre for Pattern Recognition and Data Analytics, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3216, Australia. ognjen.arandjelovic@gmail.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performance in strength and power sports is greatly affected by a variety of anthropometric factors. The goal of performance normalization is to factor out the effects of confounding factors and compute a canonical (normalized) performance measure from the observed absolute performance. Performance normalization is applied in the ranking of elite athletes, as well as in the early stages of youth talent selection. Consequently, it is crucial that the process is principled and fair. The corpus of previous work on this topic, which is significant, is uniform in the methodology adopted. Performance normalization is universally reduced to a regression task: the collected performance data are used to fit a regression function that is then used to scale future performances. The present article demonstrates that this approach is fundamentally flawed. It inherently creates a bias that unfairly penalizes athletes with certain allometric characteristics, and, by virtue of its adoption in the ranking and selection of elite athletes, propagates and strengthens this bias over time. The main flaws are shown to originate in the criteria for selecting the data used for regression, as well as in the manner in which the regression model is applied in normalization. This analysis brings into light the aforesaid methodological flaws and motivates further work on the development of principled methods, the foundations of which are also laid out in this work.

Indexed as

AnthropometryAthletic PerformanceBiasHumansMuscle StrengthSports

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.