Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42745342›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026

IMU-based identification of rowing conditions through supervised machine learning.

Anna Leber, Tobias Siebert, Walter Rapp, Steffen Held

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anna LeberDepartment of Motion and Exercise Science, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Tobias SiebertDepartment of Motion and Exercise Science, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Walter RappTraining Science and Biomechanics, Olympic Training Center Freiburg- Schwarzwald, Freiburg, Germany.
Steffen HeldDepartment of Sport and Management, IST University of Applied Sciences, Düsseldorf, Germany. sheld@ist-hochschule.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1004-101X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiomechanicsConcept2Dynamic ergometerLeave-one-subject-outMachine learningRowingRP3Static ergometerTrunk kinematicsWearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID42745342
PMCPMC13576188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.