Trajectories of relative weight and waist circumference among children with and without developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with developmental coordination disorder have been found to be less likely to participate in physical activities and therefore may be at increased risk of overweight and obesity. We examined the longitudinal course of relative weight and waist circumference among school-aged children with and without possible developmental coordination disorder. METHODS: We received permission from 75 (83%) of 92 schools in southwestern Ontario, Canada, to enrol children in the fourth grade (ages 9 and 10 at baseline). Informed consent from the parents of 2278 (95.8%) of 2378 children in these schools was obtained at baseline. The main outcome measures were body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference. Children were followed up over two years, from the spring of 2005 to the spring of 2007. RESULTS: Over the course of the study, we identified 111 children (46 boys and 65 girls) who had possible developmental coordination disorder. These children had a higher mean BMI and waist circumference at baseline than did those without the disorder; these differences persisted or increased slightly over time. Children with possible developmental coordination disorder were also at persistently greater risk of overweight (odds ratio [OR] 3.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.34-5.07) and obesity (OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.57-6.21) over the course of the study. INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed that children with possible developmental coordination disorder were at greater risk of overweight and obesity than children without the disorder. This risk did not diminish over the study period.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".