An investigation of equine injuries in Thoroughbred flat racing in North America
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this research work was to investigate and quantify the risk of fatal and fracture injury for Thoroughbreds participating in flat racing in the US and Canada so that horses at particular risk can be identified and the risk of fatal injury reduced. Risk factors associated with fatalities and fractures were identified and predictive models for both fatalities and fractures were developed and their performance was evaluated. Our analysis was based on 188,269 Thoroughbreds that raced on 89 racecourses reporting injuries to the Equine Injury Database (EID) in the US and Canada from 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2015. This included 2,493,957 race starts and 4,592,162 exercise starts. The race starts reported to the EID represented the starts for 90.0% of all official Thoroughbred racing events in the United States and Canada during the 7-year observation period. The annual average risk of fatal and fracture equine injuries for the period 2009 - 2015 was estimated and a description of the different injury types that resulted in fatalities and fractures was given, based on the cases recorded in the EID. Possible risk factors were pre-screened using univariable logistic regression models; risk factors with an association indicated by p < 0.20 were then included in a stepwise logistic regression selection process. A forward bidirectional elimination approach using Akaike's Information Criterion was utilised for the stepwise selection. We identified more than 20 risk factors that were found to be significantly associated with fatal injury (p < 0.05) and more than 20 risk factors associated with fracture injury, across the final multi-variable models. The risk factors identified are related to the horse’s previous racing history, the trainer, the race, the horse's expected performance and the horse's racing history. Five different algorithms were used to develop predictive models based on the data available from the period 2009 - 2014 for both fatal and fracture injuries. Firstly, we used Multivariable Logistic Regression, commonly used in risk factor analysis. Secondly, Improved Balanced Random Forests were developed, a machine learning algorithm based on a modification of the random forests algorithm. Because fatal injuries are extremely rare events, less than 2 instances per 1000 starts on average, balanced samples were used to develop the Random Forest model to deal with the class-imbalance problem. Furthermore, we trained an Artificial Neural Network with a single layer and two networks with deep architecture, a Deep Belief Network and a Stacked Denoising Autoencoder. As artificial neural networks and deep learning models have been successfully used to solve complex problems in a diverse field of domains we wanted to explore the possibility of using them to successfully predict equine injuries. The performance of each classifier was evaluated by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), using the data available from 2015 for validation. AUC results ranged from 0.62 to 0.64 for the best performing algorithm and similar predictive results were obtained from the wide array of different models created. This is the first study to make use of the extensive information contained in the EID to identify risk factors associated with equine fatal and fracture injuries in the US and Canada for this period. To our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective observational study investigating the risk of equine fatal and fracture injuries during flat racing in the literature. This is also the first study to train logistic regression and machine learning models to predict equine injuries using such an extensive amount of data and a full year of horse racing events for prediction and evaluation. We believe the results could help identify horses at high risk of (fatal) injury on entering a race and inform the design and implementation of preventive measures aimed at minimising the number of Thoroughbreds sustaining fatal injuries during racing in North America.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».