A Machine Learning Approach for Predicting Pedaling Force Profile in Cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of pedaling kinetics and kinematics is vital for optimizing rehabilitation, exercise training, and understanding musculoskeletal biomechanics. Pedal reaction force, the main external force in cycling, is essential for musculoskeletal modeling and closely correlates with lower limb muscle activity and joint reaction forces. However, sensor instrumentation like 3-axis pedal force sensors is costly and requires extensive post-processing. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML), particularly neural network (NN) models, provide promising solutions for kinetic analyses. In this study, an NN model was developed to predict radial and mediolateral forces, providing a low-cost solution to study pedaling biomechanics with stationary cycling ergometers. Fifteen healthy individuals performed a 2-minute pedaling task at two different self-selected (58±5 rpm) and higher (72±7 rpm) cadences. Pedal forces were recorded using a 3-axis force system. The dataset included pedal force, crank angle, cadence, power, and participants' weight and height. The NN model achieved an inter-subject normalized root mean square error (nRMSE) of 0.15±0.02 and 0.26±0.05 for radial and mediolateral forces at high cadence, respectively, and 0.20±0.04 and 0.22±0.04 at self-selected cadence. The NN model's low computational time suits real-time pedal force predictions, matching the accuracy of previous ML algorithms for estimating ground reaction forces in gait.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".