MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Children At Risk For Developmental Coordination Disorder Weak?

2016· article· en· W2512381521 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Demers, Hélène Moffet, Luc J. Hébert, Désirée B. Maltais

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exercisePercentileMedicineAnkleMuscle strengthPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle strength impairment in children has implications for long term health. For children at risk for developmental coordination disorder (rDCD), the literature has shown conflicting results regarding whether or not this group has strength impairment. The extent to which this lack of consensus is related to the specific muscle groups evaluated or to other factors affecting muscle strength is unknown. PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a wide variety of lower limb muscle groups, maximal isometric muscle strength differences between children identified as rDCD and typically developing children of the same sex and either the same age or body mass. METHODS: Maximal isometric muscle strength (torque) of the hip abductors, hip flexors, hip extensors, knee flexors, knee extensors and ankle dorsiflexors was evaluated in 34 children (13 girls, 6-12 years old) identified as rDCD according to standard and accepted procedures (scoring below the 16th percentile on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition and having no other diagnosis in the health record that could explain these test scores). Strength values for the comparison group came from a data base of 351 children with no known health conditions. The same valid and reliable hand-held dynamometry protocol was used for both groups. Children with rDCD were randomly matched with a child in the comparison group of the same sex and either the same age or body mass. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine group differences. A p-value of <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: For children of the same sex and age, the rDCD group showed significantly lower strength values (from 16,34% to 40,56%, p= 0.000 to 0.011) for all muscle groups evaluated except for the dorsiflexors. When children of the same sex and body mass were compared, the rDCD was significantly weaker only for the knee extensors (29,18 %, p=0.000) and the knee flexors (14,91 %, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Children at risk for DCD have strength impairment, but the extent of the impairment depends on the muscle group being evaluated and the characteristics, in terms of age or body mass, of the comparison group. At least some of the strength impairment may be due to growth or body size factors. Longitudinal data are required to better understand the impact of sex, growth and maturation on strength development in this group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207