ArticlePeerJ2025
Prediction of ACL injury incidence and analysis of key features in basketball players based on multi-algorithm models.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive accuracy of machine learning and markerless gait analysis for return-to-sport following lower extremity injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Explainable Machine Learning Using Sensor-Derived Biomechanical Features to Classify Elevated VALR-Related Loading Across Midsole Hardness Conditions in School-Aged Boys.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in sports medicine: mapping clinical tasks and assessing clinical maturity - a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Limited incremental value of balance and plantar-pressure measures beyond baseline CAIT for a 12-month composite ankle-instability outcome in competitive badminton players.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Basketball players are a high-risk group for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. This study aimed to identify the critical factors contributing to ACL injuries in male basketball players and evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) algorithms in injury prediction. Methodology: This study protocol was registered with International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number (ISRCTN) (Registration number: 18009799). A total of 104 male collegiate basketball players volunteered to participate in this study. Data on the athletes' profile, physical functions, basketball-specific skills, biomechanics, and electromyography (EMG) of seven lower limb muscles during unanticipated side-cutting maneuvers were collected. A 12-month follow-up was conducted to compare these variables between the injured ( Results: The performance of machine learning models in predicting ACL injury risk was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC). The AUC-ROC values ranged from 0.66 to 0.80, with the random forest algorithm achieving the highest performance (AUC-ROC = 0.80). The most influential predicting feature observed during the emergency stop phase, included a greater knee flexion moment, reduced knee flexion angle, increased backward ground reaction force, and increased activation of the vastus lateralis muscle. Conclusion: The random forest model demonstrated superior predictive performance, providing valuable insights into the key risk factors associated with ACL injury among male basketball players. This study highlighted the importance of biomechanical testing based on sport-specific movements to accurately predict the ACL injury risk.
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.