Application of Fractional Polynomials to model non-linear trajectories of English achievement

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-408
Author(s):  
Insook Cha ◽  
Ji Hoon Ryoo
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001119
Author(s):  
Lena Kristin Bache-Mathiesen ◽  
Thor Einar Andersen ◽  
Torstein Dalen-Lorentsen ◽  
Benjamin Clarsen ◽  
Morten Wang Fagerland

ObjectivesTo determine whether the relationship between training load and injury risk is non-linear and investigate ways of handling non-linearity.MethodsWe analysed daily training load and injury data from three cohorts: Norwegian elite U-19 football (n=81, 55% male, mean age 17 years (SD 1)), Norwegian Premier League football (n=36, 100% male, mean age 26 years (SD 4)) and elite youth handball (n=205, 36% male, mean age 17 years (SD 1)). The relationship between session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) and probability of injury was estimated with restricted cubic splines in mixed-effects logistic regression models. Simulations were carried out to compare the ability of seven methods to model non-linear relationships, using visualisations, root-mean-squared error and coverage of prediction intervals as performance metrics.ResultsNo relationships were identified in the football cohorts; however, a J-shaped relationship was found between sRPE and the probability of injury on the same day for elite youth handball players (p<0.001). In the simulations, the only methods capable of non-linear modelling relationships were the quadratic model, fractional polynomials and restricted cubic splines.ConclusionThe relationship between training load and injury risk should be assumed to be non-linear. Future research should apply appropriate methods to account for non-linearity, such as fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. We propose a guide for which method(s) to use in a range of different situations.


1967 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 105-176
Author(s):  
Robert F. Christy

(Ed. note: The custom in these Symposia has been to have a summary-introductory presentation which lasts about 1 to 1.5 hours, during which discussion from the floor is minor and usually directed at technical clarification. The remainder of the session is then devoted to discussion of the whole subject, oriented around the summary-introduction. The preceding session, I-A, at Nice, followed this pattern. Christy suggested that we might experiment in his presentation with a much more informal approach, allowing considerable discussion of the points raised in the summary-introduction during its presentation, with perhaps the entire morning spent in this way, reserving the afternoon session for discussion only. At Varenna, in the Fourth Symposium, several of the summaryintroductory papers presented from the astronomical viewpoint had been so full of concepts unfamiliar to a number of the aerodynamicists-physicists present, that a major part of the following discussion session had been devoted to simply clarifying concepts and then repeating a considerable amount of what had been summarized. So, always looking for alternatives which help to increase the understanding between the different disciplines by introducing clarification of concept as expeditiously as possible, we tried Christy's suggestion. Thus you will find the pattern of the following different from that in session I-A. I am much indebted to Christy for extensive collaboration in editing the resulting combined presentation and discussion. As always, however, I have taken upon myself the responsibility for the final editing, and so all shortcomings are on my head.)


Optimization ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-559
Author(s):  
L. Gerencsér

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
George W. Howe ◽  
James H. Dalton ◽  
Maurice J. Elias
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document