| Literature DB >> 36247720 |
Jun Yang1.
Abstract
In order to effectively prevent athletes' injury during sports training in physical education, a method of risk prevention of sports injury based on MRI technology was proposed. This method solves the problem of injury prevention in sports training by studying the association analysis algorithm in data mining technology and the research of MRI technology. The experimental results show that the average prediction error of CT and US is about 5%, so it can be considered that the model can predict accurately. Conclusion. The method of risk prevention of sports injury based on MRI technology can effectively prevent the injury of athletes in the process of sports training and reduce the injury rate of athletes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36247720 PMCID: PMC9534723 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1166314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scanning ISSN: 0161-0457 Impact factor: 1.750
Figure 1Data mining process.
Figure 2The generation process of frequent item sets.
Table of association rules.
| Patients with type | Generated association rules | Confidence coefficient (%) | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical examination | Color ultrasound B (kidney, ureter, bladder, prostate) color ultrasound A (liver, gallbladder, spleen, pancreas) | 98.2 | 1.157 |
| Be hospitalized | Deep vein US of left and right lower limbs→pereon DR | 73.1 | 2.867 |
| Emergency treatment | The four limb CR, plain scan of the liver, gallbladder, spleen, and pancreas→head CT plain scan | 66.4 | 1.512 |
| Outpatient service | Chest DR, arms, ureter, bladder, prostate→liver, spleen, and pancreas | 73.2 | 1.101 |
Figure 3Sequence model flow chart.
Comparison table between the actual value and predicted value of inspection quantity of each equipment type in 2011.
| CT | US | MR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual value | Predicted value | Relative error | Actual value | Predicted value | Relative error | Actual value | Predicted value | Relative error | |
| 201101 | 4704 | 5020 | 0.0671 | 10946 | 12305 | 0.1239 | 1134 | 1189 | 0.0485 |
| 201102 | 4598 | 5112 | 0.1117 | 9732 | 11225 | 0.1534 | 1190 | 1043 | 0.1235 |
| 201103 | 5642 | 5518 | 0.0219 | 13757 | 14110 | 0.0256 | 1955 | 1424 | 0.2716 |
| 201104 | 5617 | 5678 | 0.0108 | 14338 | 14288 | 0.0034 | 1872 | 1388 | 0.2585 |
| 201105 | 5876 | 5772 | 0.0176 | 16591 | 15403 | 0.0716 | 1991 | 1365 | 0.3144 |
| 201106 | 5563 | 5782 | 0.0393 | 17100 | 15743 | 0.0793 | 2027 | 1436 | 0.2916 |
| 201107 | 5634 | 5748 | 0.0202 | 17409 | 17298 | 0.0063 | 2040 | 1427 | 0.3005 |
| 201108 | 5983 | 5864 | 0.0196 | 17314 | 16281 | 0.0596 | 2105 | 1155 | 0.4513 |
| 201109 | 5249 | 5897 | 0.1234 | 15988 | 14778 | 0.0756 | 1868 | 1335 | 0.2853 |
| 201110 | 5763 | 5991 | 0.0396 | 14772 | 14197 | 0.0389 | 2079 | 1336 | 0.3574 |
| 201111 | 5609 | 5841 | 0.0413 | 16180 | 15051 | 0.0697 | 2067 | 1252 | 0.3943 |
| 201112 | 5467 | 5972 | 0.0924 | 14400 | 14392 | 0.0005 | 1790 | 1276 | 0.2874 |
| Average error | — | — | 0.0504 | 0.0590 | 0.2820 | ||||
Figure 4Statistical diagram of relative error broken line among CT, US, and MR.