ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Multidisciplinary prediction of running-related injuries using machine learning.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Artificial intelligence and sports genomics: advancing precision sports science and athletic performance.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
Abstract
The causes of endurance running-related injury (RRI) are multifactorial, yet little research has been conducted which utilizes multidisciplinary risk factors for individualized RRI prediction. This paper presents a machine learning (ML)-ready RRI weekly prediction dataset using evidence-based multidisciplinary risk factors. Risk factors in genetic single-nucleotide polymorphisms, history, muscular strength, biomechanics, body composition, nutrition, and training were collected from competitive endurance runners (n = 142), who were prospectively monitored for 12 months for RRIs, accumulating 6181 weekly samples. ML models were fitted using (i) risk factors with high-level supporting evidence, and (ii) a broader range of risk factors to establish a performance baseline. Model performance (AUC = 0.784 ± 0.014) showed moderate improvement compared to previous RRI prediction modeling. Random forest achieved the best performance (AUC = 0.781 ± 0.016, 0.784 ± 0.014), which was significantly higher (q < 0.05) than most other algorithms. Only logistic regression achieved significantly improved (q < 0.05) performance when trained using a broader range of risk factors compared to a selection of high-quality risk factors. This study introduces a reproducible methodological framework for future ML sports injury prediction research and a valuable dataset for pooling in larger-scale analytics. Comparisons among different ML methods revealed nuanced insights into the interaction between data structure and model suitability.
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.