Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: This study reviewed the current state of machine learning (ML) research for the prediction of sports-related injuries. It aimed to chart the various approaches used and assess their efficacy, considering factors such as data heterogeneity, model specificity and contextual factors when developing predictive models.
Design: Scoping review.
Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, SportDiscus and IEEEXplore.
Results: In total, 1241 studies were identified, 58 full texts were screened, and 38 relevant studies were reviewed and charted. Football (soccer) was the most commonly investigated sport. Area under the curve (AUC) was the most common means of model evaluation; it was reported in 71% of studies. In 60% of studies, tree-based solutions provided the highest statistical predictive performance. Random Forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) were found to provide the highest performance for injury risk prediction. Logistic regression outperformed ML methods in 4 out of 12 studies. Three studies reported model performance of AUC>0.9, yet the clinical relevance is questionable.
Conclusions: A variety of different ML models have been applied to the prediction of sports-related injuries. While several studies report strong predictive performance, their clinical utility can be limited, with wide prediction windows or broad definitions of injury. The efficacy of ML is hampered by small datasets and numerous methodological heterogeneities (cohort sizes, definition of injury and dependent variables), which were common across the reviewed studies.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2024-108576 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!