Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509871›Full record

ArticleDigital health

From injury to comeback: A systematic review of machine learning models predicting return to sport in athletes.

Jin Yuan, Zhuojia Li, Quanwen Zeng, Jun Li, Anjie Wang, Yong Zhang, Fei Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

7 authors.

Jin YuanSchool of Physical Education, Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0907-4812
Zhuojia LiDepartment of Physical Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.
Quanwen ZengSchool of Physical Education, Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2771-0375
Jun LiSchool of Physical Education, Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2224-4589
Anjie WangSchool of Physical Education, Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0867-0967
Yong ZhangSchool of Physical Education, Anhui Polytechnic University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.
Fei XuSchool of Traditional National Sports, Harbin Sport University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8263-4999

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

machine learningprediction modelsReturn to sportsports injury recoverysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41509871
PMCPMC12775306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.