ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Predicting athletic performance in track and field athletes based on wearable physiological and psychological indicators: an interpretable machine learning study.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Track-and-field performance fluctuates week to week under the joint influence of training load, recovery, autonomic regulation, and psychological readiness, and wearables now enable continuous physiological monitoring; however, whether bodily signals and readiness markers contribute differently to performance prediction across technical and physical events remains unclear. In a prospective longitudinal study, 132 competitive track-and-field athletes (71 physical-event, 61 technical-event) were monitored over a planned 14-week athlete-week design. One-week lagged morning LnRMSSD, resting heart rate, sleep duration and quality, session-RPE load, cognitive anxiety, and self-efficacy were used to predict subsequent standardized weekly performance change. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) models were evaluated with athlete-level grouped cross-validation. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) summarized feature contributions, and OLS interaction models with athlete-clustered robust standard errors tested moderation by event type. The integrated XGBoost model showed the highest overall prediction among the evaluated feature sets (mean outer-fold R² = 0.510, RMSE = 0.505, MAE = 0.406; within-athlete centered sensitivity R² = 0.177-0.306), and readiness measures added a consistent increment beyond monitoring-only features (mean ΔR² = 0.088). SHAP identified the ordinal competitive-level code as the largest single contribution (23.4%), followed by lagged physiological and self-efficacy features. Interaction analyses gave partial evidence of event-sensitive moderation, mainly for psychological readiness in technical events, whereas aggregated physiological and load interactions were non-significant. Sensitivity analyses showed that predictive performance decreased after removing the competitive-level code (R² = 0.366) and in within-athlete centered models, indicating that the headline R² reflected both stable athlete-level stratification and week-to-week monitoring signals. Overall, integrated wearable physiological and psychological monitoring can help predict and characterize week-to-week performance change in track-and-field athletes, with the most consistent event-sensitive signal involving psychological readiness, particularly self-efficacy, in technical events, while not implying causal mechanisms.
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.