| Literature DB >> 35050968 |
Mauro Mandorino1, António J Figueiredo2, Gianluca Cima3, Antonio Tessitore1.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze different predictive analytic techniques to forecast the risk of muscle strain injuries (MSI) in youth soccer based on training load data. Twenty-two young soccer players (age: 13.5 ± 0.3 years) were recruited, and an injury surveillance system was applied to record all MSI during the season. Anthropometric data, predicted age at peak height velocity, and skeletal age were collected. The session-RPE method was daily employed to quantify internal training/match load, and monotony, strain, and cumulative load over the weeks were calculated. A countermovement jump (CMJ) test was submitted before and after each training/match to quantify players' neuromuscular fatigue. All these data were used to predict the risk of MSI through different data mining models: Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM). Among them, SVM showed the best predictive ability (area under the curve = 0.84 ± 0.05). Then, Decision tree (DT) algorithm was employed to understand the interactions identified by the SVM model. The rules extracted by DT revealed how the risk of injury could change according to players' maturity status, neuromuscular fatigue, anthropometric factors, higher workloads, and low recovery status. This approach allowed to identify MSI and the underlying risk factors.Entities:
Keywords: fatigue; injury; predictive analytics; workload; youth soccer
Year: 2021 PMID: 35050968 PMCID: PMC8822888 DOI: 10.3390/sports10010003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sports (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4663
Summary of the features inserted the data mining models together with the average values calculated during the entire season.
| Variables | Definition | Collection/Calculation | Average Values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maturity timing (MT) | Years from peak height velocity (PHV) | Mirwald et al. [ | −0.2 ± 0.66 years |
| Maturity status (MS) | Level of maturation at the chronological age (CA) of observation | Skeletal age (SA) − CA | 1.09 ± 1.04 years |
| RPE | Rate of perceived exertion | CR-10 Borg’s scale modified by Foster et al. [ | 4.6 ± 1.89 AU |
| S-RPE | Subjective internal training load (TL) | 426.8 ± 283.1 AU | |
| Monotony | Statistical analysis of trainings’ variation over time |
| 2.96 ± 2.96 AU |
| Strain | Overall stress of the training week | 4613 ± 4008 AU | |
| WL | Cumulative loads for a period of one week | Sum of the loads of all training/match sessions over a period of one week | 1679 ± 1043 AU |
| WL2 | Cumulative loads for a period of two weeks | Sum of the loads of all training/match sessions over a period of two weeks | 3126 ± 1717 AU |
| WL3 | Cumulative loads for a period of three weeks | Sum of the loads of all training/match sessions over a period of three weeks | 4325 ± 1843 AU |
| WL4 | Cumulative loads for a period of four weeks | Sum of the loads of all training/match sessions over a period of four weeks | 5486 ± 2028 AU |
| TQR | Recovery status before the training session | TQR scale | 7 ± 1.49 AU |
| TQR-PD | Previous day’s recovery status | TQR scale | 7 ± 1.47 AU |
| PRE-CMJ | Jump height assessed before the training session | Infrared platform (Optojump system) | 31.25 ± 5.30 cm |
| POST-CMJ | Jump height assessed after the training session | Infrared platform (Optojump system) | 30.60 ± 5.09 cm |
| %CMJ | Percentage variation between PRE-CMJ and POST-CMJ |
| −1.60 ± 9.28% |
Data are expressed ad mean ± SD.
Figure 1Data processing flow chart.
Number of MSI and rates relative to the number of sessions.
| Injury Outcome | Number of Injuries (Frequency) |
|---|---|
| MSI | 27 (0.024) |
| MSI-lag | 64 (0.057) |
| Total sessions (trainings and matches) | 1118 |
Performance of the data mining models analyzing the training before injury (LR, RF, SVM) and three training sessions before injury (LR-lag, RF-lag, SVM-lag). Precision, Recall, F1-score and the overall AUC were reported. mean and the standard deviation of the evaluation metrics over 1000 cross validation tasks.
| Models | Condition | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR | NI | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.09 |
| MSI | 0.04 ± 0.1 | 0.05 ± 0.09 | 0.04 ± 0.08 | ||
| RF | NI | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.14 |
| MSI | 0.03 ± 0.12 | 0.03 ± 0.08 | 0.03 ± 0.08 | ||
| SVM | NI | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.03 | 0.91 ± 0.02 | 0.55 ± 0.16 |
| MSI | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.2 ± 0.16 | 0.06 ± 0.05 | ||
| LR-lag | NI | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.75 ± 0.05 | 0.84 ± 0.03 | 0.66 ± 0.07 |
| MSI | 0.1 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.17 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | ||
| RF-lag | NI | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.85 ± 0.07 | 0.89 ± 0.04 | 0.71 ± 0.07 |
| MSI | 0.12 ± 0.07 | 0.29 ± 0.17 | 0.16 ± 0.08 | ||
| SVM-lag | NI | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.86 ± 0.03 | 0.91 ± 0.02 | 0.84 ± 0.05 |
| MSI | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.14 | 0.3 ± 0.07 |
NI = no-injury; MSI = muscle strain injuries; LR = Logistic Regression; RF = Random Forest; SVM = Support Vector Machine.
Figure 2Decision tree model.
Figure 3SVM-lag confusion matrix.
Figure 4Example of the daily workload of two players and the relative estimated injury probability (Risk Of MSI%). In red the days with higher risk.