ArticleDigital health
From injury to comeback: A systematic review of machine learning models predicting return to sport in athletes.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- AI in Musculoskeletal Imaging: An End-to-End Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Objective: This study aims to systematically review the current literature on the application of machine learning to predict return-to-sport (RTS) decisions after athletic injuries. The review focuses on identifying the types of machine learning models used, the commonly used predictive variables, and the methodological characteristics and limitations between studies in terms of design, model development, evaluation, and reporting. Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on 1 May 2025 in three electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). Two independent reviewers selected the retrieved studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias in the included prognostic modeling studies. Results: Of the 56 studies initially identified, 11 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Knee injuries were the most frequently modeled injury type for RTS decision-making (n = 4). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) was the most commonly reported performance metric, presented in 82% of the included studies. Random Forest (RF) was the most widely used machine learning algorithm, applied in six studies (55%), and demonstrated the best predictive performance in four of them, with two studies reporting an AUC greater than 0.9. Some studies employed feature importance analysis or interpretability methods (e.g. SHAP) to identify key predictive variables. However, challenges remain in translating these models into clinical practice. Conclusions: Machine learning techniques demonstrate promising potential for predicting RTS in athletes. Nevertheless, substantial heterogeneity across studies-particularly in RTS definitions, feature selection, and model development which limits the generalizability and clinical applicability of current 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.