| Literature DB >> 35874890 |
Dehui Wang1,2, Chao Liu2, Chong Zhou2, Jiling Liang2.
Abstract
With the rapid improvement of social economy and the enhancement of people's health awareness, it is necessary to make an in-depth analysis of the rationality of physical exercise and the physical quality of residents. Hence, this study aims to explore the algorithm optimization of the improved BP model to analyze the effect of exercise intervention on improving public sports effect. K-clustering and Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm were used to construct an improved BP neural network model to determine the sample clustering center, as well as the weight and threshold of the indicators, so as to optimize the analysis algorithm of improving public sports effect. MATLAB simulation shows that under the target error conditions of 0.01, 0.005, 0.001, and 0.0001, the target error rate and iteration times of the improved BP model are better than the standard BP model, and the time consumption is shorter, which can be conducive to more accurately analyzing the changes of improving public sports effect under exercise intervention. Therefore, the improved BP model can effectively solve the problems of data clustering and result error rate adjustment in the process of improving public sports effect analysis and improve the analysis speed and accuracy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35874890 PMCID: PMC9300280 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6098797
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1Research situation of physical exercise.
Figure 2Classification of physical exercise.
Figure 3Test results of sample data.
Figure 4Steps of BP neural network.
The sample clustering.
| Category | Number of samples | Initial cluster center |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 1 | 63 | 92.22 | 5.56 | 94.44 | 106.67 | 2.78 |
| 2 | 12 | 95.56 | 2.22 | 103.33 | 94.44 | 1.78 |
| 3 | 41 | 95.56 | 4.00 | 91.11 | 103.33 | 1.11 |
| 4 | 18 | 13.33 | 3.00 | 98.89 | 94.44 | 2.44 |
| 5 | 43 | 12.00 | 3.11 | 92.22 | 90.00 | 1.43 |
Profile coefficient S under different K values.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 2 | 0.11 |
| 3 | 0.56 |
| 4 | 1.44 |
| 5 | 0.21 |
| 6 | 0.38 |
| 7 | 0.44 |
Judgment results of different functions.
| Function | Sports content | Content quantity | Number of policies | Optimization success degree | Degree of conformity with standards | Standard number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | Jumping | 1 | 3.2 | 90.2 ± 0.21 | 95.1∼98 | 1 |
| Swinging | 2 | 7 | 92.3 | 92.6 | 2 | |
| Throwing | 2 | 4.1 | 95.7 ± 0.85 | 98.9 | 3 | |
| Running | 2 | 9.6 | 91.8 | 95.3∼3.2 | 2 | |
|
| ||||||
| Coordination | Jumping | 1 | 5 | 89.3 ± 0.75 | 94.7 | 3 |
| Swinging | 4 | 4 | 85.7 | 96.8 | 1 | |
| Throwing | 3 | 3.8 | 92.4 ± 0.85 | 92.4 | 12 | |
| Running | 3 | 6 | 93.6 | 92.1∼90.8 | 43 | |
Figure 5Power of BP neural network.
Figure 6Coordination of BP neural network.
Collection of the types and proportion of exercise content.
| Group | Influence content | Influence score | Influence results |
|---|---|---|---|
| The BP neural network algorithm | Jumping | 2.3 ± 0.12 | Significant impact |
| Swinging | 1.2 ± 0.13 | Significant impact | |
| Throwing | 8.1 ± 0.27 | Significant impact | |
|
| |||
| Standard statistical analysis method | Jumping | 2.3 ± 0.72 | General impact |
| Swinging | 0.9 ± 0.12 | General impact | |
| Throwing | 7.3 ± 0.21 | General impact | |
Note. Compared with standard statistical analysis method, P < 0.05.
Comparison of two BP models under different conditions.
| 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.0001 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improvement | Change | Improvement | Change | Improvement | Change | ||
| Iterations | 72 | 1032 | 157 | 3032 | 423 | 7000 | |
| Mean square error | 1.42 | 2.12 | 0.12 | 0.82 | 0.02 | 0.29 | |
| Under different mass sports indexes | <5 | 282 (23.5) | 242 (20.1) | 690 (53.5) | 378 (31.5) | 990 (82.5) | 1139 (94.5) |
| 5–10 | 41 (3.4) | 2 (2) | 18 (1.8) | 6 (0.5) | 167 (13.9) | 150 (12.5) | |
| 10–20 | 214 (17.8) | 262 (21.8) | 109 (10.7) | 139 (11.6) | 18 (1.5) | 52 (4.3) | |
| 20–30 | 223 (18.6) | 294 (24.5) | 142 (13.9) | 232 (19.3) | 10 (0.8) | 82 (6.8) | |
| >30 | 615 (51.7) | 640 (53.2) | 332 (32.7) | 361 (30) | 25 (2.5) | 92 (7.7) | |
Figure 7The accuracy comparison of different algorithms on residents' physical fitness.