Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Response to Comment on: “Black Box Prediction Methods in Sports Medicine Deserve a Red Card for Reckless Practice: A Change of Tactics is Needed to Advance Athlete Care”

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 23 July 2022

The Original Article was published on 23 July 2022

The Original Article was published on 17 February 2022

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brocherie F, Chassard T, Touissaint J-F, Sedeaud A. Comment on: “Black Box Prediction Methods in Sports Medicine Deserve a Red Card for Reckless Practice: A Change of Tactics is Needed to Advance Athlete Care”. Sports Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01736-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bullock GS, Hughes T, Arundale AH, Ward P, Collins GS, Kluzek S. Black box prediction methods in sports medicine deserve a red card for reckless practice: a change of tactics is needed to advance athlete care. Sports Med. 2022;17:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shmueli G. To explain or to predict? Stat Sci. 2010;25(3):289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bullock GS, Hughes T, Sergeant JC, Callaghan MJ, Riley R, Collins G. Methods matter: clinical prediction models will benefit sports medicine practice, but only if they are properly developed and validated. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(23):1319–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bullock GS, Hughes T, Sergeant JC, Callaghan MJ, Riley RD, Collins GS. Clinical prediction models in sports medicine: a guide for clinicians and researchers. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021;51(10):517–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moons KG, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: what, why, and how? Bmj. 2009;23:338.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal inference, what if. Boca Raton: Champan & Hall/CRC; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P. Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. Bmj. 2009;4:338.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Glass TA, Goodman SN, Hernán MA, Samet JM. Causal inference in public health. Ann Rev Public Health. 2013;34:61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christodoulou E, Ma J, Collins GS, Steyerberg EW, Verbakel JY, Van Calster B. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;110:12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gauthier J, Wu Q, Gooley T. Cubic splines to model relationships between continuous variables and outcomes: a guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(4):675–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Building multivariable regression models with continuous covariates in clinical epidemiology. Method Inform Med. 2005;44(04):561–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hand DJ. Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Stat Sci. 2006;21(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell TM. Does machine learning really work? AI Mag. 1997;18(3):11.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Austin PC, Harrell FE, Lee DS, Steyerberg EW. Empirical analyses and simulations showed that different machine and statistical learning methods had differing performance for predicting blood pressure. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Austin PC, Harrell FE Jr, Steyerberg EW. Predictive performance of machine and statistical learning methods: impact of data-generating processes on external validity in the “large N, small p” setting. Stat Methods Med Res. 2021;30(6):1465–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ennis M, Hinton G, Naylor D, Revow M, Tibshirani R. A comparison of statistical learning methods on the GUSTO database. Stat Med. 1998;17(21):2501–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Caldwell AR, Vigotsky AD, Tenan MS, Radel R, Mellor DT, Kreutzer A, et al. Moving sport and exercise science forward: a call for the adoption of more transparent research practices. Sports Med. 2020;50(3):449–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stovitz SD, Verhagen E, Shrier I. Distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations: implications for sports medicine clinicians. Br J Sport Med. 2019;53(7):398–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cook CE, Thigpen CA. Five good reasons to be disappointed with randomized trials. J Man Manip Ther. 2019;27(2):63–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bullock GS, Ward P, Peters S, Arundale AH, Murray A, Impellizzeri F, Kluzek S. A call for open science in sports medicine. Br J Sport Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1182–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? Epidemiology. 2006;1:360–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Garrett S. Bullock

  2. Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Research Versus Arthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Garrett S. Bullock & Stefan Kluzek

  3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Garrett S. Bullock, Gary S. Collins & Stefan Kluzek

  4. Manchester United Football Club, Manchester, UK

    Tom Hughes

  5. Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    Tom Hughes

  6. Red Bull Athlete Performance Center, Thalgua, Austria

    Amelia H. Arundale

  7. Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, USA

    Amelia H. Arundale

  8. Seattle Seahawks, Seattle, USA

    Patrick Ward

  9. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Gary S. Collins

  10. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK

    Gary S. Collins

  11. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Stefan Kluzek

Authors
  1. Garrett S. Bullock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amelia H. Arundale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gary S. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stefan Kluzek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garrett S. Bullock.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this letter.

Conflict of interest

Garrett Bullock, Tom Hughes, Amelia Arundale, Patrick Ward, Gary Collins, and Stefan Kluzek declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this letter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bullock, G.S., Hughes, T., Arundale, A.H. et al. Response to Comment on: “Black Box Prediction Methods in Sports Medicine Deserve a Red Card for Reckless Practice: A Change of Tactics is Needed to Advance Athlete Care”. Sports Med 52, 2799–2801 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01737-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01737-5

Search

Navigation