ArticleSports (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Predicting Next Day Heart Rate Variability Based on Training Load in Cyclists Using Machine Learning.
Article in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDay-to-day fluctuations in heart rate variability (HRV) are widely used to infer autonomic recovery in endurance athletes. However, the extent to which HRV can be forecast one day ahead from readily available external and internal training-load metrics remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated whether machine learning models can predict next-day HRV in competitive cyclists using the two load descriptors most commonly collected in practice: external load quantified as total mechanical work in kilojoules (kJ) and internal load quantified as session rating of perceived exertion (RPE).
methodsSeven male competitive endurance cyclists were monitored daily for sixteen weeks, yielding 590 athlete-days of longitudinal data (seven independent time series). Two machine learning approaches-support vector regression (SVR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)-were compared with a conventional autoregressive model with exogenous inputs (ARX) as a traditional time-series benchmark. Each model was trained individually per athlete under two predictor scenarios (using past HRV-only or past HRV plus kJ and RPE) and across multiple lag orders (1, 4, 7, 10 and 14 days), with forecasting accuracy expressed as root mean squared error (RMSE).
resultsAcross all athletes, adding kJ and RPE to the past HRV produced only modest reductions in RMSE relative to HRV-only models. XGBoost achieved the lowest one-step-ahead RMSE at short lag, while all models converged at longer lag orders. Predictive accuracy differed markedly between athletes, reflecting the well-known individual nature of autonomic responses.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that the two routinely collected load descriptors examined here-total work (kJ) and RPE-add limited information beyond recent HRV history for forecasting next-day HRV, and that broader contextual variables are likely required to meaningfully improve athlete monitoring.
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.