Tree-based machine learning models provided the highest predictive performance for sports injury risk in 60% of reviewed studies, though clinical utility remains limited by methodological heterogeneity.
What is the efficacy of machine learning models for predicting sports-related injuries?
While machine learning models like Random Forest and XGBoost show strong statistical performance for sports injury prediction, their clinical utility is currently limited by methodological heterogeneity and small datasets.
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.
Leckey et al. (Fri,) conducted a review in Sports-related injuries (n=38). Machine learning models vs. Logistic regression was evaluated on Predictive performance (AUC) for injury risk. Tree-based machine learning models provided the highest predictive performance for sports injury risk in 60% of reviewed studies, though clinical utility remains limited by methodological heterogeneity.