ArticlePloS one2024
From data to decision: Machine learning determination of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds in athletes.
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 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Sports Medicine: A Decision-Centered Framework for the Future Sports Physician.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Mapping HRV in sports science: from monitoring to machine learning.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lactate analysis plays an important role in sports science and training decisions for optimising performance, endurance, and overall success in sports. Two parameters are widely used for these goals: aerobic (AeT) and anaerobic (AnT) thresholds. However, determining AeT proves more challenging than AnT threshold due to both physiological intricacies and practical considerations. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine AeT and AnT thresholds using machine learning modelling (ML) and to compare ML-obtained results with the parameters' values determined using conventional methods. ML seems to be highly useful due to its ability to handle complex, personalised data, identify nonlinear relationships, and provide accurate predictions. The 183 results of CardioPulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) accompanied by lactate and heart ratio analyses from amateur athletes were enrolled to the study and ML models using the following algorithms: Random Forest, XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boosting), and LightGBM (Light Gradient Boosting Machine) and metrics: R2, mean absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE) and root mean square error (RMSE). The regressors used belong to the group of ensemble learning algorithms that combine the predictions of multiple base models to improve overall performance and counteract overfitting to training data. Based on evaluation metrics, the following models give the best predictions: for AeT: Random Forest has an R2 value of 0.645, MAE of 4.630, MSE of 44.450, RMSE of 6.667; and for AnT: LightGBM has an R2 of 0.803, the highest among the models, MAE of 3.439, the lowest among the models, MSE of 20.953, and RMSE of 4.577. Outlined research experiments, a comprehensive review of existing literature in the field, and obtained results suggest that ML models can be trained to make personalised predictions based on an individual athlete's unique physiological response to exercise. Athletes exhibit significant variation in their AeT and AT, and ML can capture these individual differences, allowing for tailored training recommendations and performance optimization.
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.