Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Profiling Physical Fitness of Physical Education Majors Using Unsupervised Machine Learning
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Profiling Physical Fitness of Physical Education Majors Using Unsupervised Machine Learning
Do you wish to request the book?
Profiling Physical Fitness of Physical Education Majors Using Unsupervised Machine Learning
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Profiling Physical Fitness of Physical Education Majors Using Unsupervised Machine Learning
2022
Overview
The academic curriculum has shown to promote sedentary behavior in college students. This study aimed to profile the physical fitness of physical education majors using unsupervised machine learning and to identify the differences between sexes, academic years, socioeconomic strata, and the generated profiles. A total of 542 healthy and physically active students (445 males, 97 females; 19.8 [2.2] years; 66.0 [10.3] kg; 169.5 [7.8] cm) participated in this cross-sectional study. Their indirect VO2max (Cooper and Shuttle-Run 20 m tests), lower-limb power (horizontal jump), sprint (30 m), agility (shuttle run), and flexibility (sit-and-reach) were assessed. The participants were profiled using clustering algorithms after setting the optimal number of clusters through an internal validation using R packages. Non-parametric tests were used to identify the differences (p < 0.05). The higher percentage of the population were freshmen (51.4%) and middle-income (64.0%) students. Seniors and juniors showed a better physical fitness than first-year students. No significant differences were found between their socioeconomic strata (p > 0.05). Two profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering (Cluster 1 = 318 vs. Cluster 2 = 224). The matching analysis revealed that physical fitness explained the variation in the data, with Cluster 2 as a sex-independent and more physically fit group. All variables differed significantly between the sexes (except the body mass index [p = 0.218]) and the generated profiles (except stature [p = 0.559] and flexibility [p = 0.115]). A multidimensional analysis showed that the body mass, cardiorespiratory fitness, and agility contributed the most to the data variation so that they can be used as profiling variables. This profiling method accurately identified the relevant variables to reinforce exercise recommendations in a low physical performance and overweight majors.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
