메이저사이트

Figure 2 메이저사이트
Repetitive injury history of 35 expert rugby association players. The occasion of interest is any contact-injury supported by a player, which is indicated by a circle (○). Edited information which emerge when the result injury status is either not-harmed or obscure is indicated by strong squares (▪).

Figure 3 shows the K-M endurance bends for the purpose of looking at the CoxPH model and its speculations. The K-M bends gauge the likelihood of staying liberated from injury at a given moment in view of noticed repeats. All players were liberated from injury toward the start of the period and endurance rates were lower after each match, during which wounds happened. Practically 95% of players were harmed before the finish of 29 matches. The Cox relative relapse model gave the best fit to the initial not many matches and the most horrendously terrible fit for the excess matches. This isn't shocking given that the CoxPH model just thinks about the chance to the primary injury. The fit was additionally generally poor for the WLW-TT and PWP-GT models. The A-G26 and fragility models gave the best fit to demonstrating intermittent games injury information.

Figure 3
Standard Kaplan-Meier (K-M) bends for likelihood of staying liberated from injury for 35 expert rugby association players. Genuine and fitted endurance bends from (A) CoxPH model, (B) A-G model, (C) slightness model, (D) WLW-TT model and (E) PWP-GT model. The dark concealed areas are 95% CIs for the fitted endurance bends. Models were changed by age, match insight and weight of the players.

Table 3 shows the LL, AIC and BIC rules for the fitted models. The AIC and BIC results give solid proof that both the A-G and feebleness models perform better compared to the WLW-TT, PWP-GT and CoxPH models. Albeit the distinctions in LL were indistinct, the A-G and fragility models showed minor AIC contrasts however solid BIC contrasts in fitting the intermittent occasions.

Table 3
Model choice standards (log probability (LL), Akaike data measure (AIC) and Bayesian data rule (BIC)) of the fitted models for sports injury intermittent data*

Table 4 analyzes the attack of the five models to the injury information as per the four precision measures. On all actions, the CoxPH model threw a tantrum than every one of its augmentations. In spite of the fact that there was little distinction in fit between the two, the slightness model played out somewhat better compared to the A-G model.

Table 4
Mean square mistake (MSE), root mean-squared blunder (RMSE), mean outright mistake (MAE) and mean outright rate mistake (MAPE) of the fitted models for sports injury repetitive information

The p-values from the pairwise LRT, F and bootstrap model correlation tests are displayed in table 5. The assessed p-values contrasting the A-G and feebleness models, all being >0.05, show that these models are indistinct and either model could be utilized for investigating the repetitive games wounds in this paper. There was no critical distinction between the A-G and PWP-GT models yet the A-G model was measurably unique in relation to the WLW-TT model. The CoxPH was altogether unique just to the delicacy model.

Table 5
Pairwise integrity of-fit (probability proportion test (LRT), F-proportion (F) and bootstrap (BS)) p-values for looking at the Cox relative perils (CoxPH) model, Andersen and Gill (A-G) model, fragility model, Wei-Lin-Weissfeld all out time (WLW-TT) minor model and Prentice-Williams-Petersen hole time (PWP-GT) restrictive model for sports injury intermittent information

Table 6 shows that the bootstrap reenactment tests were performed sufficiently for each pair of models. In any case, the real sizes and powers were marginally unique in relation to the mimicked model sizes and powers. For instance, the recreated model size supplanted the real size and mimicked model power went before the genuine power at 10% degree of importance, when the WLW-TT and PWP-GT models were thought of.

Table 6
Recreated gauges (in light of 100 reenactment replications) of the size and force of the test to look at Andersen and Gill (A-G) model, fragility model, Wei-Lin-Weissfeld all out time (WLW-TT) negligible model and Prentice-Williams-Petersen hole time (PWP-GT) restrictive model fitted to sports injury intermittent data*