Trial reportScientific reports2025
Machine learning-based personalized training models for optimizing marathon performance through pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Body Composition Architecture and Injury Topology in Physically Active Young Adults: A Tanglegram-Based Cophylogenetic Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Training intensity distribution significantly influences marathon performance, yet individual variability in training responses remains poorly understood. This study compared pyramidal and polarized training methodologies using machine learning to identify optimal personalization strategies. A total of 120 recreational marathon runners were randomly assigned to 16-week pyramidal (n = 60) or polarized (n = 60) training interventions. Machine learning models analyzed individual responses using consumer-grade monitoring technology to predict optimal training methodology based on athlete characteristics. Polarized training produced superior marathon performance improvements (11.3 ± 3.2 vs. 8.7 ± 2.8 min, p < 0.03), representing 30% greater enhancement despite reduced training volume. Individual response clustering revealed four distinct groups: polarized responders (31.5%), pyramidal responders (31.9%), dual responders (18.7%), and non-responders (17.9%). Training experience emerged as the strongest predictor of methodology effectiveness (r = 0.72, p < 0.01), with novice athletes favoring pyramidal approaches and experienced athletes responding better to polarized training. Substantial inter-individual variability necessitates personalized training intensity distribution rather than universal prescriptions. Machine learning models successfully predicted optimal training methodology using easily accessible athlete characteristics, providing a practical framework for evidence-based, individualized marathon preparation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.