PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 22, 2017Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise103 citationsOpen Access

Predictive Modeling of Hamstring Strain Injuries in Elite Australian Footballers

JRJoshua D. RuddyASAnthony ShieldNMNirav Maniar

Key Result

Machine learning models using age, previous injury, and eccentric hamstring strength could not consistently predict hamstring strain injuries in elite Australian footballers (median AUC 0.52-0.58).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=362)

Structured PICO

Can machine learning models using age, previous HSI, and eccentric hamstring strength predict hamstring strain injuries in elite Australian footballers?

P
Population
362 elite Australian footballers (186 in 2013 and 176 in 2015)
I
Intervention
Machine learning predictive models based on eccentric hamstring strength, demographic, and injury history data
O
Outcome
Predictive performance of models for hamstring strain injury (HSI) assessed by area under the curve (AUC)

Machine learning models using common risk factors cannot consistently predict hamstring strain injuries in elite Australian footballers.

Limitations

  • Fragility of the data due to large ranges in AUC

Abstract

PURPOSE: Three of the most commonly identified hamstring strain injury (HSI) risk factors are age, previous HSI, and low levels of eccentric hamstring strength. However, no study has investigated the ability of these risk factors to predict the incidence of HSI in elite Australian footballers. Accordingly, the purpose of this prospective cohort study was to investigate the predictive ability of HSI risk factors using machine learning techniques. METHODS: Eccentric hamstring strength, demographic and injury history data were collected at the start of preseason for 186 and 176 elite Australian footballers in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Any prospectively occurring HSI were reported to the research team. Using various machine learning techniques, predictive models were built for 2013 and 2015 within-year HSI prediction and between-year HSI prediction (2013 to 2015). The calculated probabilities of HSI were compared with the injury outcomes and area under the curve (AUC) was determined and used to assess the predictive performance of each model. RESULTS: The minimum, maximum, and median AUC values for the 2013 models were 0.26, 0.91, and 0.58, respectively. For the 2015 models, the minimum, maximum and median AUC values were, correspondingly, 0.24, 0.92, and 0.57. For the between-year predictive models the minimum, maximum, and median AUC values were 0.37, 0.73, and 0.52, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although some iterations of the models achieved near perfect prediction, the large ranges in AUC highlight the fragility of the data. The 2013 models performed slightly better than the 2015 models. The predictive performance of between-year HSI models was poor however. In conclusion, risk factor data cannot be used to identify athletes at an increased risk of HSI with any consistency.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ruddy et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Hamstring strain injury (n=362). Machine learning predictive models (using age, previous HSI, and eccentric hamstring strength) was evaluated on Predictive performance of models for HSI incidence (measured by AUC). Machine learning models using age, previous injury, and eccentric hamstring strength could not consistently predict hamstring strain injuries in elite Australian footballers (median AUC 0.52-0.58).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1292e273c5a8f747a57f50https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001527
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper