ArticleScientific reports2025
The data analysis of sports training by ID3 decision tree algorithm and deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Observational
- Integrative analysis of transcriptomics, single-cell RNA sequencing, and GraphBAN identifiesFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of sports training data analysis, this paper proposes an optimized analysis model by combining Iterative Dichotomiser 3 (ID3) decision tree algorithm and deep learning model. As an important scientific tool, sports training data analysis aims to provide decision support for athletes and coaches, optimize training programs and improve sports performance through accurate data mining and model prediction. Traditional analysis methods have shortcomings in dealing with complex and multidimensional data, while analysis methods based on artificial intelligence can significantly improve the ability of feature extraction and prediction. Based on this background, this paper comprehensively evaluates the performance of each model in different dimensions by comparing six key indicators: mean square error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), information gain, feature importance, sports performance improvement rate and training target achievement rate. The experimental results show that the optimized model has the best MSE, and its MSE is only 1.05 under the information gain. It is significantly better than Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) of 1.48 and Capsule Networks (CapsNets) of 1.25. In terms of MAE, the minimum error of the optimized model is 0.65, while the maximum error of XGBoost is 1.11. In terms of information gain and feature importance, the optimization model is also outstanding, with the highest information gain of 1.02 and the feature importance maintained at a high level of 0.94 in many dimensions. Meanwhile, the optimized model is superior to other models in sports performance improvement rate (up to 6.71) and training target achievement rate (up to 78.32%). Therefore, this paper has certain reference significance to the field of sports training data analysis.
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.