Unsupervised clustering of heart rate variability and training load can identify distinct weekly physiological-load profiles in professional basketball players, potentially aiding individualized load management.
This study applied an unsupervised machine-learning technique to characterize weekly physiological-load states in professional basketball players using autonomic (HRV), cardiovascular (SHRZ), and mechanical (Movement Load) parameters. Eleven male professional players (mean = 25.5 years, SD = 3.9 years) were monitored over 18 weeks. Weekly averages of heart rate variability (LnRMSSD), internal load (SHRZ), and external load (Movement Load) were computed and standardized within players (z-scores). K-means clustering algorithm was applied to zHRV, zSHRZ, and zML, with the number of clusters selected via elbow criterion and clustering quality using the silhouette coefficient. Repeated-measures correlations were used to quantify associations among variables. Three distinct profiles were identified (p < .001), with values reported as mean (SD): (1) High load-elevated HRV (zHRV = 0.66 (0.56); zSHRZ = 0.69 (0.58); zML = 0.71 (0.56)); (2) Low load-near-average HRV (zHRV = 0.15 (0.84); zSHRZ =-0.98 (0.73); zML = -1.01 (SD = 0.65)); (3) High load-reduced HRV (zHRV = -1.04 (0.64); zSHRZ = 0.33 (0.59); zML = 0.34 (0.63)). Profiles recurred across the season, and heatmap visualization showed substantial temporal and inter-individual variability. Repeated-measures correlations showed weak HRV-SHRZ (r = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.20,-0.05], p = .007) and HRV-ML (r = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, -0.07], p = .368) relationships, but a very large SHRZ-ML association (r = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.84,-0.90], p < .001). Unsupervised clustering offers a practical and data-driven framework to summarizing weekly physiological-load states in elite, potentially improving individualized load-management strategies. Future studies should investigate the extent to which these clustered profiles are associated with performance outcomes, fatigue markers, and injury risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olmos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: