ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Bridging Inductive and Deductive Reasoning: A Proposal to Enhance the Evaluation and Development of Models in Sports and Exercise Science.
Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
- Dietary interventions interact with the perception of effort and enhance endurance performance: a brief narrative review.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Review
- Nature immersion in virtual reality has limited hypoalgesia effects for muscle pain or motor performance benefits during prescribed and self-regulated tasks.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Contralateral Thermal Pain and Naturally Occurring Muscle Pain Have Different Effects on Force Production During a Fixed Perceived Effort Handgrip Task.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Effort and its perception revisited: How physical-domain insights could lead toward a unified theory.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific reasoning in sports and exercise science utilizes inductive and deductive approaches. Models play a major role in both approaches for hypothesis formulation, testing, and refinement. This current opinion proposes guidelines to enhance model evaluation and application. We discuss the complementary nature of inductive and deductive reasoning in model creation and refinement, emphasizing how this complementarity maximizes the progression of scientific knowledge and highlighting the importance of falsifiability in this process. Key model characteristics, including predictive accuracy, representativeness, complexity, intricacy, explanatory power, and generalizability, are examined with examples from human physical performance research. A two-dimensional schematic is presented to evaluate models based on their predictive accuracy and representativeness, categorizing them into two categories: data-driven models and theory-driven models. This categorization ranges from low to high levels of predictability and representativeness, including an idealized target model, illustrating the progression toward ideal characteristics of models. Guidelines for model selection, evaluation, and improvement are provided, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an equilibrium between predictive accuracy and representativeness. We also propose avenues to increase models' predictive accuracy and representativeness following the initial model assessment. The proposed guidelines are intended to promote transparent scientific practices and encourage the use of modelling to help knowledge advancement in sports and exercise science through complementary inductive and deductive approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40751102What 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.