Effects of Body Composition and Anthropometric Profiles on Competitive Performance in U14 Male Basketball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the scientific article titled “Effects of Gamification on Motivation in University Students’ Physical Activity: A Systematic Review”. Below are my comments:

Introduction

1. Frequent lack of spaces before citations, e.g., lines 49, 51, 57, 61, 63, 64.
2. Missing full stops at the end of sentences, e.g., lines 67 and 84.
3. Materials
4. There is no information on whether the study obtained approval from a bioethics committee.
5. Variables and Instruments
6. The authors use the Performance Index Rating (PIR). Providing the formula of this index would definitely enrich the methodological section.
7. I understand the rationale for separating these two subsections; however, while reading the manuscript, I have the impression that the same information is repeated. I therefore suggest merging these two subsections to avoid unnecessary length.

Procedures

1. Please expand the description of body mass and body composition assessment procedures. There is a lack of information regarding, among others, the time of day the measurements were taken, whether measurements were performed in a fasted state, and whether participants were previously informed about training, nutrition, and supplementation on the day before measurement. The authors should more thoroughly discuss methodological limitations and the influence of hydration status on the results.

Statistical Methods

1. The authors state that most variables deviate from a normal distribution. I suggest also presenting results using the median and interquartile range, as these do not assume distribution symmetry and are robust to outliers.

Results

1. Tables 1, 2, and 3 – although units are described in the text, I would also add the units for each variable directly in the tables.
2. Table 2 – the abbreviation “SD” is unnecessary, as this statistical measure is not used in the table.
3. Table 2 – in the explanation of the symbol “*”, I would add the phrase “statistically significant.”
4. Table 3 – the abbreviation “B” is not explained.
5. The authors use the term “Lineal Regression” in tables and figures; however, the correct term is “Linear Regression.”

Discussion and Conclusions

1. There is no control of biological age and maturation status. This is the most important limitation of the study. In U14 athletes, differences in biological maturation may significantly affect both body composition and game performance. The lack of maturation indicators (e.g., PHV) means that conclusions regarding the influence of body composition are incomplete and potentially subject to interpretation bias.
2. In the discussion, the authors emphasize the role of fat-free mass and body size; however, they do not consider that in youth basketball, performance is also influenced by technical, tactical, and psychological factors. Without acknowledging these variables, the interpretation remains overly one-sided.
3. The PIR index is useful but does not reflect all aspects of player performance, especially off-ball actions, tactical decision quality, or defensive performance. The authors should more broadly discuss the limitations of this metric.
4. The conclusions suggest practical applications for talent selection, despite the limited predictive power of the results. More cautious formulation of practical implications is recommended.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the study. For clarity and transparency, each comment is addressed individually, with our responses presented immediately following each point.

 Introduction Comments:

1. Frequent lack of spaces before citations, e.g., lines 49, 51, 57, 61, 63, 64.
2. Missing full stops at the end of sentences, e.g., lines 67 and 84.
3. Materials
4. There is no information on whether the study obtained approval from a bioethics committee.
5. Variables and Instruments
6. The authors use the Performance Index Rating (PIR). Providing the formula of this index would definitely enrich the methodological section.
7. I understand the rationale for separating these two subsections; however, while reading the manuscript, I have the impression that the same information is repeated. I therefore suggest merging these two subsections to avoid unnecessary length.

Response to Introduction Comments: We thank the reviewer for the most valuable observations. 1) The manuscript has been carefully revised to correct formatting inconsistencies, including the insertion of appropriate spacing before in-text citations throughout the Introduction. 2) Also missing full stops at the end of sentences have been corrected to improve clarity and readability. 3) Errors have been corrected. 4) Information regarding ethical approval was already included in the Ethics section; however, we have ensured that this information is clearly presented and easily identifiable within the Methods section. 5) Errors have been corrected. 6) The formula of the Performance Index Rating (PIR) has now been included in the manuscript to improve methodological transparency and replicability. 7) The “Variables” and “Instruments” sections have been merged to avoid redundancy and improve the overall flow and conciseness of the manuscript.

 

Procedures Comments: Please expand the description of body mass and body composition assessment procedures. There is a lack of information regarding, among others, the time of day the measurements were taken, whether measurements were performed in a fasted state, and whether participants were previously informed about training, nutrition, and supplementation on the day before measurement. The authors should more thoroughly discuss methodological limitations and the influence of hydration status on the results.

Response to Procedures Comments: Thank you for this important and constructive comment. We have revised the manuscript to provide a more detailed description of the assessment procedures and to clarify the methodological context in which the measurements were conducted. Specifically, we have now included information regarding the timing of data collection, indicating that all measurements were performed in the morning on game day. Additionally, we clarified that assessments were conducted under standardized, non-fasted conditions. We would like to emphasize that all participants were U14 athletes who shared the same environment throughout the competition period (including accommodation, meals, and daily routines). This setting allowed us to ensure a high degree of standardization in pre-assessment conditions without the need for individualized instructions regarding diet, training, or supplementation. For this reason, and considering the young age of the participants, no specific guidance regarding caffeine or supplement intake was provided, as such practices are not typical or recommended in this age group. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reviewer’s point regarding hydration status as a potential influencing factor in body composition assessment. While direct control or measurement of hydration status was not implemented, the standardized living conditions and synchronized daily routines likely reduced inter-individual variability. This aspect has now been acknowledged as a methodological limitation in the revised manuscript.

The updated paragraph in the Methods section now reads as follows: "Once participation was confirmed, the research team prepared all necessary equipment for data collection. All measurements were conducted on game day, under standardized conditions to ensure consistency and ecological validity. Athletes were assessed in the morning prior to competition under standardized conditions. As all participants were U14 children sharing the same environment (including accommodation, meals, and daily activities), no additional pre-assessment instructions were required. Measurements were conducted in a controlled, non-fasted state. Athletes were evaluated barefoot and wearing light sports clothing to minimize external influences on body composition outcomes."

We believe these additions improve the transparency and methodological rigor of the study, and we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion in strengthening this section.

 

Statistical Methods Comments: The authors state that most variables deviate from a normal distribution. I suggest also presenting results using the median and interquartile range, as these do not assume distribution symmetry and are robust to outliers.

Response to Statistical Methods Comments: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Since most variables deviated from normality according to the Shapiro–Wilk test, we agree that reporting robust descriptive statistics improves the interpretability of the data. Accordingly, we revised Table 1 to include the median and interquartile range (IQR) for all continuous variables, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, which were retained to facilitate comparison with previous studies in the basketball and sports science literature. This modification provides a more comprehensive description of the sample and reduces the influence of potential outliers and distribution asymmetry.

Results Comments:

1. Tables 1, 2, and 3 – although units are described in the text, I would also add the units for each variable directly in the tables.
2. Table 2 – the abbreviation “SD” is unnecessary, as this statistical measure is not used in the table.
3. Table 2 – in the explanation of the symbol “*”, I would add the phrase “statistically significant.”
4. Table 3 – the abbreviation “B” is not explained.
5. The authors use the term “Lineal Regression” in tables and figures; however, the correct term is “Linear Regression.”

Response to Results Comments: Dear reviewer thank you for observations. 1) Measurement units have now been added directly to all variables in Tables 1, 2, for clarity. 2) The abbreviation “SD” has been removed from Table 2, as it was not applicable. 3) The legend of Table 2 has been updated to indicate that the symbol “*” refers to statistically significant results. 4) The table 3 has been indicated as “Supplementary Table S1”. 5) The term has been corrected to “Linear Regression” throughout the manuscript.

 

Discussion and Conclusions Comments:

1. There is no control of biological age and maturation status. This is the most important limitation of the study. In U14 athletes, differences in biological maturation may significantly affect both body composition and game performance. The lack of maturation indicators (e.g., PHV) means that conclusions regarding the influence of body composition are incomplete and potentially subject to interpretation bias.
2. In the discussion, the authors emphasize the role of fat-free mass and body size; however, they do not consider that in youth basketball, performance is also influenced by technical, tactical, and psychological factors. Without acknowledging these variables, the interpretation remains overly one-sided.
3. The PIR index is useful but does not reflect all aspects of player performance, especially off-ball actions, tactical decision quality, or defensive performance. The authors should more broadly discuss the limitations of this metric.
4. The conclusions suggest practical applications for talent selection, despite the limited predictive power of the results. More cautious formulation of practical implications is recommended.

Response to Discussion and Conclusions Comments: Dear reviewer we thank you for important observations.

1) We fully agree that biological maturation represents a key factor when analyzing anthropometric characteristics and performance in U14 basketball players, particularly during adolescence, when substantial inter-individual variability in growth and maturation exists. The present manuscript was specifically designed to examine the relationship between body composition profiles and competitive performance indicators. Variables related to biological maturation and relative age effects are currently being analyzed in a complementary study derived from the same research project, with a specific focus on maturational and developmental aspects. Therefore, these variables were not incorporated into the current analyses in order to preserve the conceptual focus and avoid redundancy between manuscripts. Nevertheless, following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have strengthened the discussion and limitations sections to explicitly acknowledge that the absence of direct measures of biological maturation (e.g., years from peak height velocity) may partially influence the observed associations between anthropometric characteristics and performance. We also emphasize that future studies should integrate maturation-related indicators to better differentiate the effects of biological development and body composition on youth basketball performance.  In the Discussions we have made the reference: “In this regard, the absence of direct maturation-related indicators in the present study prevents differentiating whether the observed performance advantages were primarily associated with body composition itself or with underlying maturational status.”. In the Limitations we have made the reference: “An additional limitation of this study is the absence of direct measures of biological maturation, such as maturity offset or years from peak height velocity (YAPHV). Considering that U14 players are undergoing substantial maturational changes during adolescence, differences in biological age may partially explain variations in anthropometric characteristics and competitive performance. Consequently, the associations observed between body composition and PIR should be interpreted cautiously, as more biologically mature players may present physical advantages independent of training status or technical ability.”

2) The discussion has been revised to acknowledge that basketball performance is multifactorial, however technical, tactical, and psychological dimensions were not assessed in this study. In the Discussions we have made the reference: “Also, important to refer that basketball performance in youth athletes is inherently multifactorial, involving not only physical and anthropometric factors, but also technical skills, tactical understanding, and psychological attributes. The absence of these variables should be considered when interpreting the present findings.”

 

3) The limitations of the PIR metric have been expanded in the coclusions, highlighting that it does not capture off-ball actions, tactical decision-making, or certain defensive contributions. In the Conclusions we have made the reference: “Finally, although the Performance Index Rating (PIR) is widely used, it does not capture the full multidimensional nature of basketball performance, particularly technical, tactical, and psychological aspects.”

4) The practical implications have been revised to adopt a more cautious tone, reflecting the limited predictive power of the results and the exploratory nature of the findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below I am sending my review of the research article titled “Effects of Body Composition and Anthropometric Profiles on Competitive Performance in U14 Male Basketball Players.” The aim of the study was to assess the impact of body composition and anthropometric profiles on the performance of young U14 male basketball players. The study was conducted on 96 young male basketball players from Portugal. After analyzing the scientific article, I conclude that it has many strengths, including: the data collected during games has high practical value for basketball players and coaches; conducting a principal component analysis (PCA) on the anthropometric data was a very good decision; the PIR index integrates key game statistics: points scored, rebounds, assists, steals, and turnovers.                                                                                                      

Despite its strengths, the research paper has several methodological shortcomings, so I am providing a few comments below:

1. The boys in the study (young basketball players) are in the U14 category, meaning they are in puberty (a period of changes in body size and composition); therefore, the authors should not overlook the boys’ biological age in their analysis. Boys who mature earlier generally have an advantage over their peers due to their greater height. The authors should include measurements estimating biological age in their scientific article.
2. The manuscript presents a table with a linear regression model (Table 3), in which none of the factors proved significant due to the aforementioned extreme collinearity. Presenting an unusable model in the main text may be misleading to the reader.
3. In the Limitations section, I suggest expanding it to include the issue of the lack of control over the rate of biological maturation of the subjects, as well as considering moving the regression table (Table 3) to the supplementary files, focusing the main text exclusively on PCA.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the study. For clarity and transparency, each comment is addressed individually, with our responses presented immediately following each point.

 

Reviewer comment 1: The boys in the study (young basketball players) are in the U14 category, meaning they are in puberty (a period of changes in body size and composition); therefore, the authors should not overlook the boys’ biological age in their analysis. Boys who mature earlier generally have an advantage over their peers due to their greater height. The authors should include measurements estimating biological age in their scientific article.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this important methodological observation. We fully agree that biological maturation represents a key factor when analyzing anthropometric characteristics and performance in U14 basketball players, particularly during adolescence, when substantial inter-individual variability in growth and maturation exists. The present manuscript was specifically designed to examine the relationship between body composition profiles and competitive performance indicators. Variables related to biological maturation and relative age effects are currently being analyzed in a complementary study derived from the same research project, with a specific focus on maturational and developmental aspects. Therefore, these variables were not incorporated into the current analyses in order to preserve the conceptual focus and avoid redundancy between manuscripts. Nevertheless, following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have strengthened the article Introduction, discussion and limitations sections to explicitly acknowledge that the absence of direct measures of biological maturation (e.g., years from peak height velocity) may partially influence the observed associations between anthropometric characteristics and performance. We also emphasize that future studies should integrate maturation-related indicators to better differentiate the effects of biological development and body composition on youth basketball performance. In the Introduction we have made the reference: “However, despite this recognition, studies that do not control for biological maturation may overestimate the role of anthropometric characteristics in youth performance.” In the Discussions we have made the reference: “In this regard, the absence of direct maturation-related indicators in the present study prevents differentiating whether the observed performance advantages were primarily associated with body composition itself or with underlying maturational status.” In the Limitations we have made the reference: “An additional limitation of this study is the absence of direct measures of biological maturation, such as maturity offset or years from peak height velocity (YAPHV). Considering that U14 players are undergoing substantial maturational changes during adolescence, differences in biological age may partially explain variations in anthropometric characteristics and competitive performance. Consequently, the associations observed between body composition and PIR should be interpreted cautiously, as more biologically mature players may present physical advantages independent of training status or technical ability.”

 

Reviewer comment 2: The manuscript presents a table with a linear regression model (Table 3), in which none of the factors proved significant due to the aforementioned extreme collinearity. Presenting an unusable model in the main text may be misleading to the reader.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the multivariable linear regression model showed limited interpretability due to the extreme multicollinearity among anthropometric and body composition variables, as reflected by the very high variance inflation factors (VIFs). Following the reviewer’s recommendation, the regression table has been moved from the main manuscript to the Supplementary Material (Supplementary Table S1). In the revised version, the main text now focuses primarily on the principal component analysis (PCA), which was specifically implemented to address the multicollinearity problem and provide a more robust interpretation of the relationships between body composition and competitive performance.

 

Reviewer comment 3: In the Limitations section, I suggest expanding it to include the issue of the lack of control over the rate of biological maturation of the subjects, as well as considering moving the regression table (Table 3) to the supplementary files, focusing the main text exclusively on PCA.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation. Following this suggestion, the limitations section has been expanded to explicitly acknowledge the absence of biological maturation indicators, such as maturity offset or years from peak height velocity (YAPHV), which may partially influence the observed relationships between body composition and competitive performance in U14 players. Additionally, to improve the clarity and interpretability of the manuscript, the multivariable regression table has been moved to the Supplementary Material (Supplementary Table S1). Consequently, the main text now emphasizes the principal component analysis (PCA) as the primary analytical approach, given its suitability for addressing the strong multicollinearity observed among anthropometric and body composition variables. In the Material and Methods session we have made the reference:”Given the severe multicollinearity observed among anthropometric and body composition variables, unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) was adopted on the eight body composition variables as the main multivariate approach to reduce dimensionality and obtain more interpretable predictors of competitive performance.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors on the significant revisions, which have certainly improved the quality of the manuscript.