ArticlePloS one2022
Determining jumping performance from a single body-worn accelerometer using machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dataset of paired smartphone and BioPlux accelerometer measurements for vertical jump analysis.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Estimating the Standing Long Jump Length from Smartphone Inertial Sensors through Machine Learning Algorithms.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Using Raw Accelerometer Data to Predict High-Impact Mechanical Loading.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External peak power in the countermovement jump is frequently used to monitor athlete training. The gold standard method uses force platforms, but they are unsuitable for field-based testing. However, alternatives based on jump flight time or Newtonian methods applied to inertial sensor data have not been sufficiently accurate for athlete monitoring. Instead, we developed a machine learning model based on characteristic features (functional principal components) extracted from a single body-worn accelerometer. Data were collected from 69 male and female athletes at recreational, club or national levels, who performed 696 jumps in total. We considered vertical countermovement jumps (with and without arm swing), sensor anatomical locations, machine learning models and whether to use resultant or triaxial signals. Using a novel surrogate model optimisation procedure, we obtained the lowest errors with a support vector machine when using the resultant signal from a lower back sensor in jumps without arm swing. This model had a peak power RMSE of 2.3 W·kg-1 (5.1% of the mean), estimated using nested cross validation and supported by an independent holdout test (2.0 W·kg-1). This error is lower than in previous studies, although it is not yet sufficiently accurate for a field-based method. Our results demonstrate that functional data representations work well in machine learning by reducing model complexity in applications where signals are aligned in time. Our optimisation procedure also was shown to be robust can be used in wider applications with low-cost, noisy objective functions.
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.