ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of various traditional machine learning techniques for predicting the acute effect of different hamstring muscle stretching methods among male soccer players.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute effects of plyometric-dynamic stretching sequencing on athletic and neuromuscular performance in soccer players: a randomized crossover trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the acute effects of static (SS), dynamic (DS), and ballistic (BS) hamstring stretching on performance in male soccer players and applied machine learning (ML) to predict protocol efficacy. A total of 249 players with and without hamstring shortening completed each protocol across three sessions with 72 h of rest. Hamstring shortening classified via passive knee extension test (> 32.2° knee angle). Flexibility, strength, sprint, power, and agility were measured pre- and post-stretching. Each protocol: 4 sets × 30 s (holds/swings/bounces at 50-60 bpm), 10 s rest. ML models (k-NN, SVM, random forest) were trained on pre-post difference scores, with feature selection applied to identify key predictors and Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique used to address class imbalance. Findings indicate SS optimally acutely improves flexibility, whereas DS offers broader immediate performance benefits for a subsequent activity. Combining feature selection and data balancing increased k-NN accuracy to 53% (only ~ 20% points above the chance level of 33.3% for this three-class problem), highlighting methodological challenges in predicting individual responses. Exploratory analysis using ML using synthetic minority over-sampling technique reached a peak accuracy of 53.06% (compared to a baseline of 33.3%), demonstrating the promise of the approach but also highlighting the challenges of applying ML to predict individual responses to stretching interventions, underscoring the need for larger datasets and more advanced models.
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.