Trajectories of cardiorespiratory fitness in children with and without developmental coordination disorder: a longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the longitudinal trajectories of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in children with probable developmental coordination disorder (DCD) with those of typically developing children. SETTING: School-based study, conducted in a large region of Ontario, Canada. 75 out of a possible 92 schools (83%) consented to participate. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of children, enrolled in grade 4 (mean 9 years 11 months; SD 0.05) at baseline (n=2278) were followed twice-yearly over a 2-year period. MEASURES: The short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency was used to identify children with probable DCD and the Leger shuttle run to measure maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2)max). RESULTS: Mixed-effects modelling was used to estimate the change over time in predicted VO(2)max for both children with probable DCD and typically developing children. For all children, VO(2)max declined over time. Children (boys and girls) with probable DCD not only had lower VO(2)max at baseline compared with typically developing children, VO(2)max declined among these children at a much steeper rate. CONCLUSION: Although previous research has found children with DCD to have poor CRF compared with typically developing children, most of this work has relied on cross-sectional designs to examine group differences. The results of this study confirm that differences in CRF between children with and without probable DCD persist over time, highlighting the concern that DCD is a risk factor for poor cardiovascular health in children.
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".