ArticleBMC research notes2023
Comparison of optimized machine learning approach to the understanding of medial tibial stress syndrome in male military personnel.
Article in BMC research notes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Sports Injuries and Customizing Personalized Prevention Strategies: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the applicability of optimized machine learning (ML) approach for the prediction of Medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) using anatomic and anthropometric predictors.
methodTo this end, 180 recruits were enrolled in a cross-sectional study of 30 MTSS (30.36 ± 4.80 years) and 150 normal (29.70 ± 3.81 years). Twenty-five predictors/features, including demographic, anatomic, and anthropometric variables, were selected as risk factors. Bayesian optimization method was used to evaluate the most applicable machine learning algorithm with tuned hyperparameters on the training data. Three experiments were performed to handle the imbalances in the data set. The validation criteria were accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsThe highest performance (even 100%) was observed for the Ensemble and SVM classification models while using at least 6 and 10 most important predictors in undersampling and oversampling experiments, respectively. In the no-resampling experiment, the best performance (accuracy = 88.89%, sensitivity = 66.67%, specificity = 95.24%, and AUC = 0.8571) was achieved for the Naive Bayes classifier with the 12 most important features.
conclusionThe Naive Bayes, Ensemble, and SVM methods could be the primary choices to apply the machine learning approach in MTSS risk prediction. These predictive methods, alongside the eight common proposed predictors, might help to more accurately calculate the individual risk of developing MTSS at the point of care.
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.