USE OF ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS TO EVALUATE THE INTERACTION OF CONFOUNDING FACTORS WITH DISCRIMINATING FACTORS DURING THE SELECTION OF YOUNG ATHLETES FROM DIFFERENT SPORTS: A PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multilayer artificial neural networks (MLP's) have proven to be effective in discriminating morphological and biomechanical specificities of young elite athletes. However, they have not yet verified the effectiveness of MLP's to identify the interaction of confounding factors, such as biological maturation (BM). BM influences morphological and biomechanical factors, so if MLPs have not considered this confounding factor they may group young athletes by maturational rather than sport characteristics. Objective: Analyze the morphological and neuromuscular discriminatory factors of young athletes of different sports using MLP’s to assess the interaction with BM. Methods: The sample consisted of 56 young national level Brazilian athletes (tennis, rowing, football, Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ), swimming and volleyball) of both sexes (13.0±1.0-yrs). Measurements included standing and sitting height, leg length, BM (by peak height velocity, PHV), body composition (by DEXA), upper limb performance, handgrip and squat (SJ) and countermovement (CMJ) jumps. Analyses were performed using canonical correlations and MLP's. Results: BM, sitting height, bone density (BMD), CMJ and handgrip discriminated 39.3% of athletes (F=2.432; p<0.001). Specifically, sitting height, handgrip, CMJ and BMD produced the probability of discriminating volleyball athletes by 80%, football by 78.1%, BJJ by 55.5%, tennis by 33.9%, swimming by 30.9% and rowing by 16.6%. BM interacted positively in the discrimination process of athletes in 90% in football, in 80% in volleyball and in 54.5% in swimming. Conclusion: MLP's have been shown to be effective in finding the interaction of confounding factors. MLP's can be used to aid in the selection process of young athletes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".