ArticlePloS one2025
Advancing training effectiveness prediction in mass sport through longitudinal data: A mathematical model approach based on the Fitness-Fatigue Model.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Dynamic effects of different exercise modalities on autonomic recovery: a longitudinal study based on heart rate variability.European journal of applied physiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the critical need for scientific training load assessment in mass sports, the Fitness-Fatigue Model (FFM) requires further mathematical optimization and practical output indicators. The aim of this study was to optimize the mathematical relationship between "adaptation" and "fatigue" in the FFM, identify generalizable model output indicators, and evaluate its performance in predicting training effectiveness in mass sport. To account for the nonlinear and time-varying characteristics of training effectiveness, this study proposed new mathematical assumptions and optimized parameters against individual longitudinal data. The external load (speed and wattage) and internal load (wearable-compatible heart rate variability [HRV] and heart rate recovery [HRR] related indicators) of each training day were collected for 28-42 days per person (420 paired data from 13 subjects during 12 weeks of medium-intensity continuous cycling). The longitudinal data were used to perform parameter estimation and model evaluation for each individual separately. When the optimal model output indicator was selected, the R2 values of the optimized model ranged from 0.61-0.95, with fitting root mean square error (RMSE) at 0.07-0.37, and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in predictive ability assessment at 3.99%-31.99%. However, a few individuals had larger fitting errors (minimum R2 of 0.32, maximum RMSE of 0.90) and predictive errors (maximum MAPE of 86.57%) when the output indicator was inappropriate. The original model generally has lower R2 and higher RMSE and MAPE. This shows the optimization of functional relationships and the application of individual longitudinal data have resulted in better performance of the model, but optimal indicator selection varies by individual. Furthermore, HRV and HRR related indicators are generalizable model output indicators that can be used to predict training effectiveness in mass sports through wearable devices and machine learning technology. However, the study has limitations including the homogeneous sample and single training type. Future research should validate the model across different sports and populations, investigating the factors affecting model fitting and prediction.
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.