ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2021
A Learn-to-Rank Approach for Predicting Road Cycling Race Outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploratory analysis of critical event phases and the impact of team size and performance levels in 24 hour ultra cycling.PloS one · 2025Article
- Body Mass Index Trends for the Top Five Finishers in Men's Grand Tour and Monument Cycling Events from 1994-2023: Implications for Athletes and Sporting Stakeholders.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ultra-Cycling- Past, Present, Future: A Narrative Review.Sports medicine - open · 2024Review
- Pro-cycling team cyclist assignment for an upcoming race.PloS one · 2024Article
- Quantitative analysis of the dominant external factors influencing elite speed Skaters' performance using BP neural network.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Construction of Women's All-Around Speed Skating Event Performance Prediction Model and Competition Strategy Analysis Based on Machine Learning Algorithms.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professional road cycling is a very competitive sport, and many factors influence the outcome of the race. These factors can be internal (e.g., psychological preparedness, physiological profile of the rider, and the preparedness or fitness of the rider) or external (e.g., the weather or strategy of the team) to the rider, or even completely unpredictable (e.g., crashes or mechanical failure). This variety makes perfectly predicting the outcome of a certain race an impossible task and the sport even more interesting. Nonetheless, before each race, journalists, ex-pro cyclists, websites and cycling fans try to predict the possible top 3, 5, or 10 riders. In this article, we use easily accessible data on road cycling from the past 20 years and the Machine Learning technique Learn-to-Rank (LtR) to predict the top 10 contenders for 1-day road cycling races. We accomplish this by mapping a relevancy weight to the finishing place in the first 10 positions. We assess the performance of this approach on 2018, 2019, and 2021 editions of six spring classic 1-day races. In the end, we compare the output of the framework with a mass fan prediction on the Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) metric and the number of correct top 10 guesses. We found that our model, on average, has slightly higher performance on both metrics than the mass fan prediction. We also analyze which variables of our model have the most influence on the prediction of each race. This approach can give interesting insights to fans before a race but can also be helpful to sports coaches to predict how a rider might perform compared to other riders outside of the team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.