MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971921138 · doi:10.1136/ebmh.6.1.18

Childhood motor impairment is associated with male anxiety at 11 and 16 years

2003· letter· en· W1971921138 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Missiuna

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Mental Health · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMotor impairmentPsychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2002) American Journal of Psychiatry 159, 1044; Sigurdsson E, van Os J, Fombonne E. . Are impaired childhood motor skills a risk factor for adolescent anxiety? Results from the 1958 U.K Birth Cohort and the National Child Development Study. . June; . : . –6. . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Do delayed childhood motor skills predict persistent anxiety in adolescence? Longitudinal cohort study. United Kingdom. 6850 people born during one week in March 1958 participating in an ongoing national birth cohort study. Data were collected when participants were 7, 11 and 16 years old. Motor impairment was measured using parental reports of the child’s not walking at 18 months of age and teacher reports of poor hand control at age 7; ‘clumsiness’ at age 7; poor hand control at 11 years, andpoor coordination at 11 years. Demographic information and emotional problems were controlled for. Maternally rated anxiety at 11 and 16 years. 8% of boys and 3% of girls had motor impairment. Boys with poor motor skills at age 7 had higher levels of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.issn%253D0002-953X%26rft.aulast%253DSigurdsson%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%26rft.volume%253D159%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1044%26rft.epage%253D1046%26rft.atitle%253DAre%2BImpaired%2BChildhood%2BMotor%2BSkills%2Ba%2BRisk%2BFactor%2Bfor%2BAdolescent%2BAnxiety%253F%2BResults%2BFrom%2Bthe%2B1958%2BU.K.%2BBirth%2BCohort%2Band%2Bthe%2BNational%2BChild%2BDevelopment%2BStudy%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.159.6.1044%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12042195%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.1044&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12042195&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F6%2F1%2F18.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175951300023&link_type=ISI

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Mental HealthSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207