ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2024
Construction of 2022 Qatar World Cup match result prediction model and analysis of performance indicators.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. 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.
- AI-driven healthcare innovations for enhancing clinical services during mass gatherings (Hajj): task force insights and future directions.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Predicting football match outcomes: a multilayer perceptron neural network model based on technical statistics indicators of the FIFA world Cup.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
This research investigates the influence of performance metrics on match outcomes and constructs a predictive model using data from the Qatar World Cup. Employing magnitude-based decision and an array of machine learning algorithms, such as Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines, AdaBoost, Random Forests, and Artificial Neural Network, we examined data from 59 matches, excluding extra time. Fourteen performance indicators were integrated into the model, with two types of match outcomes-winning and non-winning-serving as the output variables. The ANN model exhibited the highest predictive performance, achieving an accuracy of 75.42%, an AUC of 76.96%, a precision of 72.73%, a recall of 65.31%, a specificity of 77.03%, and an F1 score of 68.82%. SHAP analysis revealed that "On Target", "Shooting Opportunity", and "Ball Progressions" were the most influential features. These findings underscore the critical role of shooting accuracy and the creation of scoring opportunities in determining match outcomes. Consequently, this study developed an accurate model for predicting match outcomes and meticulously analyzed the match performance. Coaches should prioritize the sensitive indicators identified in this study during training and structure training sessions 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.