ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Technical classification of professional cycling stages using unsupervised learning: implications for performance variability.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In professional cycling, the technical characteristics of race stages significantly influence group dynamics and performance variability among competitors. However, stage classifications have traditionally been subjective, lacking a robust empirical foundation. This study aimed to develop an objective, technical classification of professional cycling stages using unsupervised learning (KMeans) and analyze how these categories relate to collective performance variability, measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of finish times. Methods: Technical data and official results from 439 international race stages conducted between 2017 and 2023 were analyzed. The technical variables included distance, total vertical gain, average relative elevation, and percentages of paved and unpaved surfaces. Results: Cluster validation via Bootstrap analysis demonstrated high stability (mean silhouette index = 0.62 ± 0.03), confirming six clearly distinct technical stage groups. Results indicated that stages characterized by higher relative elevation and greater proportions of unpaved surfaces exhibited higher performance variability (higher CV),whereas less technically demanding stages showed lower variability; relative elevation emerged as the strongest predictor of CV ( Discussion: The lack of physiological data and possible confounding from unmeasured stage and team factors (e.g., weather, stage order, team tactics) limit causal inference. This empirical typology provides a valuable quantitative tool to optimize competitive strategies, plan targeted training based on stage type, and prevent cumulative fatigue and performance-related injuries in high-performance cycling. Future research incorporating direct physiological data is recommended to further explore the relationship between external and internal load in professional cycling.
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.