ArticleSports medicine international open2024
Win Your Race Goal: A Generalized Approach to Prediction of Running Performance.
Article in Sports medicine international open, 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.
- Machine learning-based personalized training models for optimizing marathon performance through pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Can Non-Conventional Blood Biomarkers Improve Running Performance Prediction? A Proof of Concept.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Endurance Sports: Metabolic, Recovery, and Nutritional Perspectives.Nutrients · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a novel approach for predicting running performance, designed to apply across a wide range of race distances (from marathons to ultras), elevation gains, and runner types (front-pack to back of the pack). To achieve this, the entire running logs of 15 runners, encompassing a total of 15,686 runs, were analyzed using two approaches: (1) regression and (2) time series regression (TSR). First, the prediction accuracy of a long short-term memory (LSTM) network was compared using both approaches. The regression approach demonstrated superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 89.13% in contrast, the TSR approach reached an accuracy of 85.21%. Both methods were evaluated using a test dataset that included the last 15 runs from each running log. Secondly, the performance of the LSTM model was compared against two benchmark models: Riegel formula and UltraSignup formula for a total of 60 races. The Riegel formula achieves an accuracy of 80%, UltraSignup 87.5%, and the LSTM model exhibits 90.4% accuracy. This work holds potential for integration into popular running apps and wearables, offering runners data-driven insights during their race preparations.
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.