ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Model-based estimates of sex differences in peak power and fatigue index in track cyclists using directed acyclic graphs, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and Bayesian modeling.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate sex-related differences in peak power and fatigue index in track cyclists under an explicit causal modeling framework integrating directed acyclic graphs, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and hierarchical Bayesian estimation. Design and methods: A cross-sectional observational study with a quantitative approach was conducted to estimate adjusted sex-related differences in anaerobic performance indicators in track cyclists. Because sex was non-randomized and not experimentally manipulable, the estimates were interpreted as model-based associations under explicit causal assumptions rather than as definitive interventional causal effects. The sample included 21 cyclists, 15 males and 6 females, aged 14-17 years, with at least 3 years of experience in track cycling. Peak power, mean power, relative power outputs, and fatigue index were assessed using a 30-s Wingate-type test performed on the athletes' own bicycles mounted on a Tacx NEO 2T Smart electromagnetic resistance system in a controlled velodrome-based setting. The analysis integrated DAG-informed covariate selection, exploratory IPTW diagnostics, sensitivity analyses, and Bayesian estimation with convergence diagnostics. Results: Male cyclists showed higher peak power (mean [M] = 884.16 W; standard deviation [SD] = 130.76) than female cyclists (M = 626.00 W; SD = 59.93). Similarly, the fatigue index was higher in males (M = 46.23%; SD = 1.21) than in females (M = 44.22%; SD = 0.37). IPTW diagnostics indicated limited covariate balance, particularly for body weight and height, and instability of the unpenalized propensity score model. Sensitivity analyses showed that the sex-related difference in peak power was model-dependent, whereas the fatigue index difference was more consistent across model specifications. Four-chain Bayesian models showed adequate convergence, with R-hat values close to 1.00 and effective sample sizes above 7,700 for the main sex-difference parameters. Conclusions: These findings suggest that sex-related differences in power generation and fatigue responses may be relevant for individualized training planning. However, given the small sample size and the observational cross-sectional design, the results should be interpreted as exploratory model-based estimates.
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.