A Systematic Review of Smart Clothing in Sports: possible Applications to Extreme Sports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Traditional monitoring of athletes during sports has long been hampered by bulky, complicated and tethered systems. In the past decade, this has changed due to the miniaturization of sensors and improvement of systems to store and transmit data. These systems have been integrated into textiles to create ‘smart clothing’ which has been so ubiquitous that a review of the recent literature is crucial for understanding its full potential and potential use in extreme sports. Methods. An electronic data base search was performed from 2003 to April 2019 for full length articles including "Smart" AND "Clothing" OR "Clothing" AND "Sport(s)" written in English with human subjects. Articles were evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results. Twenty-four studies resulted in 18 systems comprised of 22 types of clothing with various capabilities, including: monitoring heart rate, electromyography, respiratory rate, steps, GPS, energy expenditure, posture, body temperature and identifying the activity. Conclusions. Many types of smart clothing from socks and gloves, to pants, shirts and bras are increasingly utilized to monitor sports activity worldwide and gather previously unavailable, yet highly valuable data. This provides a unique opportunity to study athletes during training and competition, potentially providing more effective training and better safety protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it