Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40689852›Full record

ArticleMedicine and science in sports and exercise2025

Strength, Jump Height, Landing, and Mobility Metrics Predict High and Low Performers of a Fire and Move Assessment: A Machine Learning Approach.

Ayden McCarthy, Joel Thomas Fuller, Jodie Anne Wills, Steve Cassidy, Mita Lovalekar, Bradley C Nindl, Tim L A Doyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joel Thomas Fuller
Jodie Anne Wills
Steve CassidySchool of Computing, Macquarie University, NSW, AUSTRALIA.
Mita LovalekarDepartment of Sports Medicine and Nutrition in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Neuromuscular Research Laboratory/Warrior Human Performance Research Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
Bradley C NindlDepartment of Sports Medicine and Nutrition in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Neuromuscular Research Laboratory/Warrior Human Performance Research Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.

Funding

Office of Naval Research N62909-21-1-2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCombat maneuverability is critical for soldier survivability. Military organizations ensure effective combat maneuverability through routine assessments. Advanced statistical analyses may improve combat movement efficiency practices. This study grouped physical qualities (e.g., strength, power, mobility) via an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and extracted factors to compare high and low performers and develop predictive models.

methodsThirty-four participants completed two sessions assessing physical qualities and combat movement performance. Participants were classified as either "high" or "low" performers (i.e., completed 50 laps of the assessment or completed less than 50 laps, respectively). An EFA was conducted to reduce physical quality dataset dimensions into specific factors. T -test and effect size compared factors between high and low performers. Logistic regression, multilayer perceptron, and random forest models were trained and tested to classify performers based on factor values. Feature importance scores determined factors most influential in classifying participants.

resultsEFA resulted in four factors (81.46% variance explained). Factor 1 represented isometric strength, jumping, and drop landing ability. Factors 2-4 represent isometric strength and rate of force development in the lower and upper body, and overhead squat ability, respectively. All factors significantly differed between groups, with high performers demonstrating higher mean values than low performers ( P < 0.05). Factor 1 demonstrated a very large effect size ( d = 2.15), whereas factors 2-4 were moderate-large ( d = 0.72-0.81). The logistic regression model had 100% accuracy in the testing phase, whereas other models achieved 86%. Factor 1 was the most influential factor across models (approximately six times more than other factors).

conclusionsUtilized models show military applicability in classifying high or low performers for combat maneuverability. Physical interventions optimizing factor 1 may enhance combat maneuverability.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMilitary PersonnelMuscle StrengthAdultExercise TestFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMovementYoung AdultCLASSIFICATION MODELSCOMBATMILITARYPHYSICAL INTERVENTIONS

Identifiers

PMID40689852
PMCPMC12893142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.