Developmental coordination disorder, physical activity and mental health in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental coordination disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting about 5 percent of all children. The diagnosis is made when children present with motor ability significantly lower than that expected for their age, when a direct link between poor motor ability and limitations in activities of daily living and/or poor academic performance can be made, and when children do not have an existing neurological condition (e.g., cerebral palsy) that would better explain their poor motor coordination. Previous research has shown interesting lines of potentially intersecting findings: first, children with DCD are at much greater risk of overweight/obesity and have much lower rates of physical activity and participation in organized sport when compared to typically developing children. Second, children with DCD are also at greater risk for poor mental health outcomes, especially depression and anxiety. Given known associations between physical activity and mental health in other populations, we should be designing and testing interventions targeting physical activity in children with motor coordination difficulties that have the potential to increase psychological well-being as well as physical health. In this presentation, we review the literature showing links between DCD, physical inactivity and internalizing problems (i.e., depression and anxiety) in children and adolescents. We will also present a recent model – the Environmental Stress Hypothesis - and the growing body of studies, which examine the mechanisms linking motor coordination problems and physical activity to mental health problems in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".