The association of abnormal cerebellar function in children with developmental coordination disorder and reading difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with developmental coordination disorder/dyspraxia (DCD) are at high risk of reading and writing delay. The difficulties with motor skills are heterogeneous and many children have features of poor cerebellar function, reflected in problems with posture, balance and fast accurate control of movement. This study confirmed a high level of parental reporting of reading and writing delay in a clinical group of 23 children with DCD, defined on the basis of both clinical examination and standardized testing of motor function. Direct measurement of reading delay, identified still further children in the group. Those children with reading delay had associated findings typical of phonological awareness difficulties. The children also underwent a standardized test of neurological function and although they all had difficulties with cerebellar function, no distinctive pattern emerged for those whose presentation was complicated by delayed reading and writing. Both the children with DCD and 136 typically developing children, completed the pilot parental questionnaire on gross motor skills. The three skills of catching a ball, jumping on a moving playground roundabout and handwriting, distinguished the children with DCD. This study therefore confirms that children with DCD should be assessed for difficulties in phonological awareness. Additionally, children aged between 7 and 12 years are on the whole, highly competent in a range of gross motor skills and further study might determine whether a simple parental questionnaire might detect children who would benefit from further assessment. The study also suggests that all the children with DCD have cerebellar dysfunction and further work with a larger group might determine particular patterns associated with reading delay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".