ArticlePloS one2024
Essential elements of physical fitness analysis in male adolescent athletes using machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Sub-Elite Youth Football Players: Predicting Recovery Through Machine Learning Integration of Physical, Technical, Tactical and Maturational Data.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical fitness (PF) includes various factors that significantly impacts athletic performance. Analyzing PF is critical in developing customized training methods for athletes based on the sports in which they compete. Previous approaches to analyzing PF have relied on statistical or machine learning algorithms that focus on predicting athlete injury or performance. In this study, six machine learning algorithms were used to analyze the PF of 1,489 male adolescent athletes across five sports, including track & field, football, baseball, swimming, and badminton. Furthermore, the machine learning models were utilized to analyze the essential elements of PF using feature importance of XGBoost, and SHAP values. As a result, XGBoost represents the highest performance, with an average accuracy of 90.14, an area under the curve of 0.86, and F1-score of 0.87, demonstrating the similarity between the sports. Feature importance of XGBoost, and SHAP value provided a quantitative assessment of the relative importance of PF in sports by comparing two sports within each of the five sports. This analysis is expected to be useful in analyzing the essential PF elements of athletes in various sports and recommending personalized exercise methods accordingly.
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.