Developmental Coordination Disorder and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not known whether children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) have lower cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) than children without the disorder, or whether this relationship varies by age and gender. These issues are examined using a cross-sectional assessment of children 9-14 years of age (N = 549). Participants were screened for DCD using the short form Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP-SF). A BOTMP-SF age-adjusted standard score at or below the 10th percentile rank on the BOTMP-SF was required to classify a diagnosis for probable DCD. CRF was determined from each participant’s predicted peak-aerobic power using the Léger 20-m shuttle-run test. Children with DCD report lower CRF than children without the disorder and are more likely to be in a high-risk group (≤ 20th percentile in peak VO2). Moreover, 70% of boys with DCD scored at or below the 20th percentile in peak VO2. Further research in a laboratory setting should be conducted to confirm these findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".