Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046938›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2024

Addressing grading bias in rock climbing: machine and deep learning approaches.

B O'Mara, M S Mahmud

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

B O'MaraRemote Sensing Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.
M S MahmudRemote Sensing Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The determination rock climbing route difficulty is notoriously subjective. While there is no official standard for determining the difficulty of a rock climbing route, various difficulty rating scales exist. But as the sport gains more popularity and prominence on the international stage at the Olympic Games, the need for standardized determination of route difficulty becomes more important. In commercial climbing gyms, consistency and accuracy in route production are crucial for success. Route setters often rely on personal judgment when determining route difficulty, but the success of commercial climbing gyms requires their objectivity in creating diverse, inclusive, and accurate routes. Machine and deep learning techniques have the potential to introduce a standardized form of route difficulty determination. This survey review categorizes machine and deep learning approaches taken, identifies the methods and algorithms used, reports their degree of success, and proposes areas of future work for determining route difficulty. The primary three approaches were from a route-centric, climber-centric, or path finding and path generation context. Of these, the most optimal methods used natural language processing or recurrent neural network algorithms. From these methods, it is argued that the objective difficulty of a rock climbing route has been best determined by route-centric, natural-language-like approaches.

Indexed as

boulderingdeep learningmachine learningrock climbingroute grade difficulty

Identifiers

PMID40046938
PMCPMC11881084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.