Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41040476›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025

A machine learning approach for saddle height classification in cycling.

Fangbo Bing, Guoxin Zhang, Linjuan Wei, Ming Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Fangbo BingDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Guoxin ZhangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Linjuan WeiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ming ZhangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cyclingjoint anglelower limbmachine learningsaddle height

Identifiers

PMID41040476
PMCPMC12483900

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.