ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
IMU-based identification of rowing conditions through supervised machine learning.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 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
backgroundRowing combines on-water and ergometer-based training, while inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a practical approach for field-based biomechanical monitoring. This study examined whether trunk-mounted IMU data can distinguish static Concept2 (C2), dynamic RP3, and on-water rowing conditions.
methodsTen youth rowers (16.3 ± 0.8 years) performed high-intensity rowing in all three conditions. Triaxial acceleration and gyroscope data were recorded at 208 Hz. Six classical machine-learning and four deep-learning models classified overlapping three-stroke windows using leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. Repeated-measures analyses assessed condition-specific IMU magnitude features.
resultsThe ensemble achieved the highest mean accuracy (85.5 ± 10.3%). Individual accuracy varied from 24.0% to 97.1% across models and athletes. The 7,545 windows were imbalanced toward Boat, with a no-information rate of 71.8%. Boat was identified most reliably, whereas RP3 was frequently misclassified as Boat. Nine of ten magnitude features remained significant after false-discovery-rate correction.
conclusionsTrunk-mounted IMU signals distinguished the three rowing conditions at group level. However, class imbalance, RP3 familiarity, measurement order, boat-standardisation asymmetry, and athlete-level variability require cautious interpretation. Applied use requires athlete-specific calibration and prospective validation.
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.