ArticleScientific reports2026
Personalized training model for 10 m air pistol through machine learning: a pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
This pilot study aimed to develop an interpretable machine-learning framework to classify high- versus low-ring-value performance in 10 m air pistol shooting and to identify key technical factors relevant to training feedback. A total of 3,179 valid shots were collected from an elite shooter using a SCATT laser training system. Eight SCATT-derived metrics were extracted from aiming-trajectory and process data. An XGBoost classifier was trained with SMOTE-Tomek to mitigate class imbalance and Optuna for hyperparameter optimization. The decision threshold was selected on the training set via cross-validation by maximizing the F1 score. Model interpretability was examined using SHAP to quantify feature contributions. On the held-out test set, the optimized XGBoost model achieved an AUC of 0.86 and an accuracy of 0.83 (F1-optimized threshold = 0.30). SHAP analyses the most influential features, indicating that smaller deviation and more stable final-second aiming were associated with high-ring-value performance. This interpretable classification framework provides data-driven, individualized technical feedback from SCATT data and may support practical decision-making in precision shooting training. Further validation with additional athletes is needed to improve generalizability.
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.