ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
A machine learning approach for saddle height classification in cycling.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Saddle height is an important factor in bike fitting because it correlates with cycling efficiency and the risk of injuries. Conventional approaches use anthropometric parameters and joint angles as references to calculate the optimal saddle height, such as the greater trochanter height and knee flexion angle. However, these methods fail to consider individual dynamic differences in cycling. Objective: This study proposed a machine learning (ML) model for calculating saddle height based on easily measured kinematic data. Method: In total, 16 subjects participated in riding tests at three saddle heights. The motion capture system recorded the trajectories of markers attached to their lower limbs. Features were calculated using the hip, knee, and ankle joint angles. The optimal feature set was selected using forward sequential feature selection. The accuracies of four ML models were compared using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. Results: The optimal feature set contained 14 features related to the hip, knee, and ankle joint angles. The sagittal plane knee angle was the most sensitive to the saddle height, with a classification accuracy of 80%. The Conclusion: The proposed model compensates for the lack of consideration in traditional methods of individual dynamic variations in cycling, providing a more objective tool for data-driven personalization in bike fitting.
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.