European Academy of Childhood Disability (EACD): Recommendations on the definition, diagnosis and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (pocket version) German–Swiss interdisciplinary clinical practice guideline S3‐standard according to the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pocket versionbDefinition, diagnosis, assessment, and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (DCD) Rainer Blank (Chair of the Scientific Committee of the EACD, Task Force ‘Recommendations’). Hans Forssberg (Chair of the EACD). The recommendations were approved by a European panel of experts at the EACD meeting in Brussels, 26 May 2010, and through further DELPHI rounds. J M Albaret (France), A Barnett (United Kingdom), R Geuze (the Netherlands), D Green (Israel/United Kingdom), M Hadders-Algra (the Netherlands), S Henderson (United Kingdom), M L Kaiser (Switzerland), A Kirby (United Kingdom), R P Lingam (United Kingdom), H Polatajko (Canada), M Schoemaker (the Netherlands), B Smits-Engelsman (the Netherlands), H van Waelvelde (Belgium), P Wilson (Australia), S Zoia (Italy) (alphabetical order). Prof Dr Med Rainer Blank, University of Heidelberg, Child Centre Maulbronn, D-75433 Maulbronn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]. ‘Underlying mechanisms’: P Wilson (Australia). ‘Consequences’, ‘Comorbidity’, ‘Definition and assessment’: R Blank (Germany). ‘Treatment’: B Smits-Engelsman (the Netherlands). H Becker (Germany), R Blank (Germany), O Jenni (Switzerland), M Linder-Lucht (Germany), H Polatajko (Canada), F Steiner (Switzerland), R Geuze (the Netherlands), B Smits-Engelsman (the Netherlands), P Wilson (Australia). The full guideline process was consistently advised by international experts in the field: B Smits-Engelsman (Physiotherapist, the Netherlands). H Polatajko (Occupational therapist, Canada). P Wilson (Neuropsychologist, Australia). R Geuze (Clinical physicist/neuropsychologist, the Netherlands). Recommendations (R) and statements (S) (according to algorithms). Definition, assessment, treatment indication (algorithm). Several recommendations are based on a formal consensus within a nominative group process, particularly those dealing with definition. Recommendations based on group consensus (GCP) are included in the guideline. A strong agreement (strong consensus ≥95%, if only ten or fewer participants were present ≥90% agreement) is marked as GCP ++; a moderate agreement (consensus ≥75–95%, if only ten or fewer participants were present ≥90%) is marked as GCP+.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".