Key result
A multimodal machine learning fusion model improved average precision by 8.2% and recall by 20.3% compared to a traditional data integration scheme for predicting lower extremity injury risk.
Why the study?
Existing sports injury risk models do not fully utilise multi-source, multimodal data to reveal specific injury risk patterns.
Does a multimodal fusion machine learning model improve the prediction of lower extremity non-contact injury risk in young female basketball players compared to traditional data integration schemes?
Observational (n=16)
Does a multimodal fusion machine learning model improve the prediction of lower extremity non-contact injury risk in young female basketball players compared to traditional data integration schemes?
A multimodal fusion machine learning model significantly improves the prediction of lower extremity non-contact injury risk in athletes compared to traditional data integration methods.
May support ML-based injury risk stratification in female athletes; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
The application of machine learning algorithms in studying injury assessment methods based on data analysis has recently provided a new research insight for sports injury prevention. However, the data used in these studies are primarily multi-source and multimodal (i.e., longitudinal repeated-measures data and cross-sectional data), resulting in the models not fully utilising the information in the data to reveal specific injury risk patterns. Therefore, this study proposed an injury risk prediction model based on a multi-modal strategy and machine learning algorithms to handle multi-source data better and predict injury risk. This study retrospectively analysed the routine monitoring data of sixteen young female basketball players. These data included training load, perceived well-being status, physiological response, physical performance and lower extremity non-contact injury registration. This study partitions the original dataset based on the frequency of data collection. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) was used to construct unimodal submodels to obtain decision scores for each category of indicators. Ultimately, the decision scores from each submodel were fused using the random forest (RF) to generate a lower extremity non-contact injury risk prediction model at the decision-level. The 10-fold cross-validation results showed that the fusion model was effective in classifying non-injured (mean Precision: 0.9932, mean Recall: 0.9976, mean F2-score: 0.9967), minimal lower extremity non-contact injuries risk (mean Precision: 0.9317, mean Recall: 0.9167, mean F2-score: 0.9171), and mild lower extremity non-contact injuries risk (mean Precision: 0.9000, mean Recall: 0.9000, mean F2-score: 0.9000). The model performed significantly more optimal than the submodel. Comparing the fusion model proposed with a traditional data integration scheme, the average Precision and Recall improved by 8.2 and 20.3%, respectively. The decision curves analysis showed that the proposed fusion model provided a higher net benefit to athletes with potential lower extremity non-contact injury risk. The validity, feasibility and practicality of the proposed model have been confirmed. In addition, the shapley additive explanation (SHAP) and network visualisation revealed differences in lower extremity non-contact injury risk patterns across severity levels. The model proposed in this study provided a fresh perspective on injury prevention in future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Lower extremity non-contact injury risk (n=16). Multimodal machine learning fusion model vs. Traditional data integration scheme was evaluated on Classification of lower extremity non-contact injury risk. A multimodal machine learning fusion model improved average precision by 8.2% and recall by 20.3% compared to a traditional data integration scheme for predicting lower extremity injury risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: