SynthesisScientific reports2026
The application of machine learning in the prediction of sports injuries: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting sports injuries is highly challenging, and current machine learning-based models for predicting sports injuries hold promise for addressing the difficulties in sports injury prediction. This study aims to assess the overall performance of existing prediction models in forecasting sports injuries. A comprehensive search was conducted in five databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore. The search covered studies from the inception of each database until December 2025, and the performance of sports injury prediction models was reported. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed based on potential influencing variables. Results: Ten predictive models across ten independent studies were ultimately included in the present analysis. The bivariate random-effects model yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87) and a pooled specificity of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61-0.80) for the included predictive models. The overall diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 9.02 (95% CI: 4.31-18.88), demonstrating substantial predictive efficacy. Furthermore, the pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) were 2.72 (95% CI: 1.93-3.83) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18-0.49), respectively. Assessment of heterogeneity revealed no significant threshold effect, as evidenced by a weak correlation between logit sensitivity and logit specificity (r = -0.11) and a non-significant asymmetry parameter in the HSROC model (beta= -0.30, P = 0.372). Potential factors such as sample size, model type, validation method, and injury type may influence model performance. Conclusion: Existing machine learning-based sports injury prediction models exhibit considerable methodological differences, and these methodological barriers affect the improvement and enhancement of model performance. It is recommended to apply imbalance handling to datasets with small sample sizes, use k-fold cross-validation to prevent overly optimistic prediction performance, and combine time-series data with other data for feature extraction. These suggestions need to be further validated through larger-scale studies to improve the performance of sports injury prediction 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.