A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Wearable Satellite System Technology for Linear Sprint Profiling: Technological Innovations and Practical Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Cormier, P, Meylan, C, Agar-Newman, D, Geneau, D, Epp-Stobbe, A, Lenetsky, S, and Klimstra, M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of wearable satellite system technology for linear sprint profiling: technological innovations and practical applications. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 405-418, 2024-An emerging and promising practice is the use of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) technology to profile team-sports athletes in training and competition. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the literature regarding satellite system sensor usage for sprint modeling and to consolidate the findings to evaluate its validity and reliability. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an electronic search of the databases, PubMed and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), was conducted. Concurrent validity and reliability studies were considered, and 16 studies were retained for the review from the initial 1,485 studies identified. The effects on outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs, Cohen's d ) for each outcome (i.e., maximal sprint speed [MSS], the acceleration constant [τ], maximal theoretical velocity [ V0 ], relative force [ F0 ], and relative power [P max ]). Effect magnitudes represented the SMD between GNSS-derived and criterion-derived (i.e., radar and laser) and resulted in the following estimates: small for MSS ( d = 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.42), τ ( d = -0.18, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.23), V0 ( d = 0.14, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.36), relative F0 ( d = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.55), and relative P max ( d = 0.21, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.58). No publication bias was identified in meta-analyzed studies and moderator analysis revealed that several factors (sampling rate and sensor manufacturer) influenced the results. Heterogeneity between studies was considered moderate to high. This highlighted the differences between studies in sensor technology differences (i.e., sampling rate, sensor fusion, and satellite network acquisition), processing techniques, criterion technology used, sprint protocols, outcome reporting, and athlete characteristics. These findings may be useful in guiding improvements in sprint modeling using GNSS technology and enable more direct comparisons in future research. Implementation of all-out linear sprint efforts with GNSS technology can be integrated into sport-specific sessions for sprint modeling when robust and consistent data processing protocols are performed, which has important implications for fatigue monitoring, program design, systematic testing, and rehabilitation in individual and team sports.
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 | 0.029 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".