SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2026
Machine learning models for injury risk prediction in football players: A systematic review of predictors, performance, practical applications, and limitations.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveFootball is associated with a high incidence of musculoskeletal injuries because of its dynamic, high-intensity, and contact nature. Machine learning methods offer the potential to capture nonlinear relationships among diverse risk factors. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the application, accuracy, and practical utility of machine learning models for predicting injuries in football players.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus, along with manual searches, through October 2025. Cohort and cross-sectional studies applying machine learning methods for injury prediction in football players were included (n = 22). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsWe performed a narrative synthesis because of substantial heterogeneity in study design, machine learning models, injury definitions, and predictor variables. Common predictors included training load metrics, previous injury history, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics, anthropometric variables, and psychological and biological indicators. Most studies reported moderate-to-high discriminative performance based on area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and precision metrics. Reported accuracy values ranged from approximately 55% to 96%. However, several studies relied only on accuracy as the primary metric, which is susceptible to misinterpretation in the presence of class imbalance between injury and noninjury observations; metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, or area under the curve-ROC would provide a more balanced evaluation. Models generally demonstrated better performance for noncontact and soft tissue injuries than for contact injuries.ConclusionsMachine learning models may have exploratory value for injury risk stratification in football. However, the current evidence remains heterogeneous and methodologically limited. Further studies with large-scale designs, standardized methodologies, external validation, appropriate calibration, and clinical interpretability are required before these models can be recommended for routine injury-prevention practice.Review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (ID: 1279575).
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.