ArticleScientific reports2024
Research and performance analysis of random forest-based feature selection algorithm in sports effectiveness evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Random Forest Detection of charcoal driven vegetation loss in Ghana's Afram Plains.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Construction of a classification model for dementia among Brazilian adults aged 50 and over.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Hybrid lion and exponential PSO-based metaheuristic clustering approach for efficient dynamic data stream management.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fusing wrist pulse and ECG data for enhanced identification of coronary heart disease and its complications.Frontiers in physiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid progress in fields such as data mining and machine learning, as well as the explosive growth of sports big data, have posed new challenges to the research of sports big data. Most of the available sports data mining techniques concentrates on extracting and constructing effective features for basic sports data, which cannot be achieved simply by using data statistics. Especially in the targeted mining of sports data, traditional mining techniques still have shortcomings such as low classification accuracy and insufficient refinement. In order to solve the problem of low accuracy in traditional mining methods, the study combines the random forest algorithm with the artificial raindrop algorithm, and adopts a sports data mining method based on feature selection to achieve effective analysis of sports big data. This study is based on the evaluation method of motion effects using random forests, and uses feature extraction algorithms to study the motion effect impacts. It uses the information gain index to rank the importance of features and accurately gain the degree of influence of exercise on various indicators of the human body. Through simulation verification, the algorithm proposed by the research institute performs the best in accuracy and FI scores on the training and testing sets, with accuracies of 0.849 ± 0.021 and 0.819 ± 0.022, respectively, and F1 scores of 0.837 ± 0.020 and 0.864 ± 0.021, respectively. This indicates that the algorithm proposed by the research institute has high classification accuracy and performance proves that the Random Forest-based feature selection algorithm established in this study is superior to the existing traditional feature extraction and extraction methods in terms of both performance and accuracy. The proposal of this data analysis method has achieved accurate and efficient utilization of sports big data, which is of great significance for the development of the sports education industry.
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.