Molecular Big Data in Sports Sciences: State-of-Art and Future Prospects of OMICS-Based Sports Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Together with environment and experience (that is to say, diet and training), the biological and genetic make-up of an athlete plays a major role in exercise physiology. Sports genomics has shown, indeed, that some DNA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can be associated with athlete performance and level (such as elite/world-class athletic status), having an impact on physical activity behavior, endurance, strength, power, speed, flexibility, energetic expenditure, neuromuscular coordination, metabolic and cardio-respiratory fitness, among others, as well as with psychological traits. Athletic phenotype is complex and depends on the combination of different traits and characteristics: as such, it requires a "complex science," like that of metadata and multi-OMICS profiles. Several projects and trials (like ELITE, GAMES, Gene SMART, GENESIS, and POWERGENE) are aimed at discovering genomics-based biomarkers with an adequate predictive power. Sports genomics could enable to optimize and maximize physical performance, as well as it could predict the risk of sports-related injuries. Exercise has a profound impact on proteome too. Proteomics can assess both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view the modifications induced by training. Recently, scholars have assessed the epigenetics changes in athletes. Summarizing, the different omics specialties seem to converge in a unique approach, termed sportomics or athlomics and defined as a "holistic and top-down," "non-hypothesis-driven research on an individual's metabolite changes during sports and exercise" (the Athlome Project Consortium and the Santorini Declaration) Not only sportomics includes metabonomics/metabolomics, but relying on the athlete's biological passport or profile, it would enable the systematic study of sports-induced changes and effects at any level (genome, transcriptome, proteome, etc.). However, the wealth of data is so huge and massive and heterogenous that new computational algorithms and protocols are needed, more computational power is required as well as new strategies for properly and effectively combining and integrating data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".