Contents
In August 2025, MyTwin built a first prototype of an injury-risk model for racket sports. Built into the athlete’s digital twin, it estimates whether a player is at higher risk of injury over the next 14 days. The aim is to give players and their staff a signal early enough to adapt training and recovery.
The first tests, run internally on historical data from professional tennis, are encouraging: the prototype flagged more than 80% of the injuries that occurred in the following 14 days. That figure tells only half of the story, and we would rather say so upfront. False alarms have not been measured yet, and the results have not been independently validated. A scientific study comes next, and it will have its own news.
An injury-risk signal inside the athlete’s twin
The prototype works on the player’s data in their MyTwin twin, not on a one-off test: training load, recovery, physiological indicators and history. It returns an estimated risk for the next 14 days, meant to be read by the player and their staff alongside everything else they know.
Joshua’s story shows the doubt it is meant to address. An amateur competitive tennis player, drained before an important tournament, he had no clear way to decide whether to push through or ease off.
An estimated risk is not a forecast of what will happen. Our article on what a risk score really means explains the difference. The prototype is a decision aid for training and recovery, not a diagnosis: an injury, or the pain that announces one, remains a matter for a doctor or a physiotherapist.
What the first benchmark shows, and what it doesn’t
We tested the prototype on historical professional tennis data: about 180,000 matches involving some 6,800 players. The injuries it had to anticipate were those reported in the press. On that data, it flagged more than 80% of them within the following 14 days.
Press reports are a practical reference at that scale, and an imperfect one: they capture the injuries of professional players that become public, and miss those that don’t. The study will have to work from more complete injury records.
In statistical terms, that is sensitivity: the share of real injuries the model caught. On its own, it is not enough. A model that raised an alert for every player, every fortnight, would catch every injury and be useless. What matters just as much is precision: how many alerts turn out to be real injuries. We have not measured it yet.
- SensitivityHow many injuries does it catch?Measured internally: more than 80% of injuries flagged within 14 days
- PrecisionHow many alerts are false alarms?Not measured yet
- Independent validationDoes it hold up on data it has never seen?The scientific study, with its own news
Published research explains the caution. A study on professional football players found a model that detected around 80% of injuries with about 50% precision: one alert in two was a false alarm. A systematic review of 204 injury-prediction models in sport found that none had been externally validated, and could recommend none for use in practice. And screening tests have long struggled to predict injuries, because at-risk and not-at-risk players overlap so much.
Why tennis, padel and pickleball
In tennis, most injuries affect the lower limbs, according to a review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Acute injuries tend to hit the legs, while overuse injuries more often affect the upper limbs and trunk: the kind of damage that builds up over weeks, which is where an early signal can matter.
Padel is growing fast, with more than 35 million players according to the International Padel Federation. Research on its injuries is still thin: a 2023 systematic review found the elbow to be the most common injury site, based on limited literature.
Pickleball counted 24.3 million players in the United States in 2025, up from 4.2 million in 2020. A ten-year study of US emergency departments found that injured players had a mean age of 64, that most injuries came from falls, and that the wrist was the most injured body part.
Three sports, three very different populations: professional players, fast-growing recreational communities and older adults. So far, the benchmark covers professional tennis only.
Body and mind in the same twin
Physical load is only part of an athlete’s picture. A meta-analysis in elite sport found symptoms of anxiety or depression in 34% of current elite athletes, and the International Olympic Committee now recommends routine screening and monitoring of mental health with validated instruments.
That is why the same twin can also carry voice analysis from our partner Virtuosis AI, in pilot in MyTwin’s private beta: signals associated with stress, anxiety and low mood, read alongside physical data. Like the injury-risk signal, it is information to act on with a professional, not a diagnosis.
What comes next
The scientific study will take the prototype where the first benchmark could not:
- measure false alarms as carefully as missed injuries;
- rely on more complete injury records than press reports;
- test the model on data it has never seen;
- have the method and results reviewed by the scientific community.
Padel and pickleball, whose players and injuries differ from professional tennis, will need their own data. Each of these steps will be told here, as its own news.
Frequently asked questions
Can players use the model today?
No. It is a prototype tested internally on historical data. It is not available to players or staff at this stage.
Does an alert mean a player will get injured?
No. An alert means a higher estimated risk over the next 14 days, not a certainty. And since false alarms have not been measured yet, the prototype's alerts cannot be interpreted on their own.
Sources
Sources · 11
- 01Rossi A. et al., 2018, “Effective injury forecasting in soccer with GPS training data and machine learning”, PLoS One.
- 02Bullock G.S. et al., 2022, “Just how confident can we be in predicting sports injuries? A systematic review of the methodological conduct and performance of existing musculoskeletal injury prediction models in sport”, Sports Medicine.
- 03Bahr R., 2016, “Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review”, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
- 04Pluim B.M. et al., 2006, “Tennis injuries: occurrence, aetiology, and prevention”, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
- 05Fu M.C. et al., 2018, “Epidemiology of injuries in tennis players”, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.
- 06International Padel Federation (FIP), 2025, “World Padel Report 2025”.
- 07Dahmen J. et al., 2023, “Incidence, prevalence and nature of injuries in padel: a systematic review”, BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine.
- 08Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), 2026, “Pickleball Single Sport Report”.
- 09Yu et al., 2025, “Increasing incidence of pickleball injuries presenting to US emergency departments: a 10-year epidemiological analysis”, Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.
- 10Gouttebarge V. et al., 2019, “Occurrence of mental health symptoms and disorders in current and former elite athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
- 11Reardon C.L. et al., 2026, “Mental health in elite athletes: International Olympic Committee consensus statement (2026)”, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
This news is provided for information only. The technologies it describes are at research or pilot stage, and none of them replaces advice, diagnosis or treatment from a healthcare professional.
