ArticlePloS one2026
Prioritizing next-day readiness decline in elite female soccer using readiness, workload, and wellness data: A temporally validated and calibrated monitoring framework.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Daily athlete monitoring is widely used in elite soccer, but its value depends on whether routine data can help identify athlete-days more likely to be followed by self-reported next-day readiness decline. This retrospective study evaluated a temporally validated and calibrated model for prioritizing staff-review attention in elite female soccer. Using SoccerMon data, we analyzed 14,428 eligible athlete-days from 50 players. The outcome was same-athlete next-calendar-day self-reported readiness decline ≥0.5 athlete-specific SD calculated from at least five observed readiness values strictly before the index date. Models were trained in 2020 and evaluated in a held-out 2021 test set. Adding workload and wellness to readiness improved discrimination (Model 4 vs Model 0: AUC 0.7645 vs 0.7043; PR-AUC 0.5135 vs 0.3808); paired athlete-level bootstrap ΔAUC was 0.0592 (95% CI 0.0288-0.0891). Platt recalibration reduced Brier score from 0.1924 to 0.1460 without changing ranking. Reviewing the top 20% (1,672 athlete-days) captured 881 events (46.1%) versus 36.4% for Model 0. These retrospective results support cautious staff-review prioritization rather than demonstrated improvement in athlete management or performance, and prospective implementation testing and independent external validation are required before real-world use.
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.