## 3 Results  
Table 1 presents the results from the comparison of the subject information, anthropometric, and F-V variables of top and base gymnasts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables (Mean \(\pm\) SD)** & **Top Gymnasts (_n = 11_)** & **Base Gymnasts (_n = 17_)** & _p-Value_ & **Effect Size (95\% CI)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Subject information} \\ \hline Age (years) & 13.75 \(\pm\) 2.14 & 18.15 \(\pm\) 3.05 & \textless{0.001 }\({}^{*}\) & 1.6 (0.1–2.2) \\ \hline Sex (M; F) & M = 1; F = 10 & M = 3; F = 14 & 0.05 \({}^{*}\) & 0.5 (\(-\)0.0–1.0) \\ \hline Training experience (years) & 7.09 \(\pm\) 3.28 & 8.35 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 0.17 & 0.4 (\(-\)0.2–0.9) \\ \hline Weekly training volume (hours) & 29.45 \(\pm\) 1.77 & 29.29 \(\pm\) 1.96 & 0.75 & \(-\)0.1 (\(-\)0.6–0.5) \\ \hline Level (1 st division and elite) & 1 st = 5; E = 6 & 1 st = 9; E = 8 & 0.59 & \(-\)0.1 (\(-\)0.7–0.4) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Anthropometrics} \\ \hline Body mass (kg) & 35.77 \(\pm\) 7.70 & 63.67 \(\pm\) 10.70 & \textless{0.001 }\({}^{*}\) & 2.9 (2.1–3.6) \\ \hline Height (cm) & 145.64 \(\pm\) 9.66 & 167.67 \(\pm\) 5.86 & \textless{0.001 }\({}^{*}\) & 2.9 (2.1–3.7) \\ \hline Height of push-off (cm) & 32.57 \(\pm\) 4.09 & 38.37 \(\pm\) 5.25 & \textless{0.001 }\({}^{*}\) & 1.2 (0.6–1.8) \\ \hline Body fat percentage (\%) & 21.72 \(\pm\) 4.83 & 18.16 \(\pm\) 5.92 & 0.01 \({}^{*}\) & \(-\)0.6 (\(-\)1.1; \(-\)0.1) \\ \hline BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 16.64 \(\pm\) 1.53 & 22.53 \(\pm\) 2.68 & \textless{0.001 }\({}^{*}\) & 2.6 (1.8–3.3) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of top and base gymnasts: subject information, anthropometric, and F-V-profile-associated variables. Figure 2: Coefficient of determination of the linear regressions between target (real F-V imbalance) and output (estimated F-V imbalance) values for all subjects, training, and testing sets (**panel A**, **B**, and **C**, respectively). Age, sex, all the anthropometric variables, P\({}_{\text{max}}\), and CMJ height present significant differences between roles. Bases present higher values for all variables, except for fat percentage, which is, on average, 2% higher in tops (Table 1). The relative importance of each variable for the F-V profile that was demonstrated by all the gymnasts are presented in Figure 3. The left side of this figure presents the mean SHAP values that were obtained for each variable. The F\({}_{0}\) variable presents the highest contribution (20.36 SHAP values), followed by P\({}_{\text{max}}\) (5.13 SHAP values). Fat percentage, V\({}_{0}\), height, and body mass make similar contributions (2.35, 2.27, 2.24, and 2.07 SHAP values, respectively). The role performed, years of practice, and competition level are placed in the middle of the hierarchy (0.95, 0.78, and 0.67 SHAP values, respectively). The age and sex variables showed marginal effects in explaining the F-V profile but remained relevant for the model construction. A variable's positive or negative impact on the F-V profile (the model output) can be interpreted on the right panel of Figure 3. The results show that the FV\({}_{\text{imb}}\) increases with \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables (Mean \(\pm\) SD)** & **Top Gymnasts (_n = 11_)** & **Base Gymnasts (_n = 17_)** & _p-Value_ & **Effect Size (95\% CI)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{F-V profile associated variables} \\ \hline F\({}_{0}\) (N/kg) & 29.10 \(\pm\) 3.19 & 33.57 \(\pm\) 7.09 & 0.88 & \(-\)0.0 (\(-\)0.6; 0.5) \\ \hline V\({}_{0}\) (m/s) & 2.98 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 3.38 \(\pm\) 1.25 & 0.21 & 0.3 (\(-\)0.2; 0.9) \\ \hline P\({}_{\text{max}}\) (W/kg) & 24.15 \(\pm\) 4.87 & 27.20 \(\pm\) 5.85 & 0.04 * & 0.6 (0.0; 1.1) \\ \hline CMJ height (cm) & 29.10 \(\pm\) 3.19 & 35.30 \(\pm\) 6.22 & \textless{0.001 *} & 1.2 (0.6; 1.8) \\ \hline F-V imbalance (\%) & 81.00 \(\pm\) 34.96 & 79.56 \(\pm\) 36.61 & 0.88 & \(-\)0.0 (\(-\)0.6; 0.5) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}