ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Leakage-aware race-level upset-risk diagnostics for prospective horse-race prediction.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
Prospective prediction systems should not only generate individual-level predictions but also indicate when event-level conditions suggest high upset risk or difficult-to-act-on cases. This study developed and evaluated a leakage-aware race-level upset-risk diagnostic for prospective horse-race prediction under temporal validation. Japanese flat-racing data were analyzed using a fixed pre-event evaluation framework. A race-level binary upset label was constructed retrospectively from post-event results, payouts, and final popularity for label construction and evaluation only, whereas prediction features were restricted to pre-event race-structure variables. The temporal split used 2015-2022 races for training, 2023-2024 races for validation, and races from January 5, 2025 to May 10, 2026 for independent testing. Candidate-model assessment was performed using the validation split only, and the primary revised model was a prespecified unweighted standardized logistic regression model. In the temporal test set of 4,556 races, the primary revised model achieved ROC AUC: 0.6459, PR-AUC: 0.6308, Brier score: 0.2325, and log loss: 0.6567. Upset-risk stratification showed that the top 10% highest-upset-probability races had an observed upset rate of 0.6820, compared with a baseline rate of 0.5151. Conversely, the bottom 10% lowest-upset-probability races had an observed upset rate of 0.2193. These findings suggest that a race-level upset-risk diagnostic can stratify races into high-risk and lower-risk strata while remaining separate from horse-level prediction scores. The proposed framework emphasizes prediction-time information constraints, leakage prevention, validation-only candidate-model assessment, calibration assessment, and selective-use evaluation as practical components of deployment-oriented machine-learning evaluation.
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.