MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100102394 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.9.763

Clinical expression of developmental coordination disorder in a large Canadian family

2008· article· en· W100102394 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Gaines, David Collins, Kym M. Boycott, Cheryl Missiuna, Denise DeLaat, Helen Soucie

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychomotor learningPsychologyComprehensionDevelopmental psychologyMotor coordinationPopulationLanguage delayArticulation (sociology)PediatricsMedicineClinical psychologyLanguage developmentPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies of the phenotype of developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have largely concentrated on population-based samples. The present study reports on an in-depth examination of a large Canadian family with eight children, after three children who were suspected to have DCD were referred for evaluation. Subsequently, five of the six children whose motor impairments could be measured, and the mother, met the diagnostic criteria for DCD as per the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - fourth edition. The family members diagnosed with DCD showed remarkably similar profiles of motor difficulties. Additionally, the five children diagnosed with DCD had current speech articulation difficulties, with four of them having visited speech/language pathologists; the mother had a lateral lisp. More in-depth testing for three children revealed intact intellectual, academic and language comprehension skills. Three of the children diagnosed with DCD were obese. The present report highlights familial clustering of DCD and the presence of comorbid conditions in the affected children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207