Health-related Fitness in Preschool Children with and without Motor Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: School-age children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have poor health-related fitness (HRF), but little is known about when these deficits emerge. The purpose of this study was to determine if 4- and 5-yr-old children who meet the criteria for DCD exhibit poorer HRF compared with typically developing (TD) children, and if this relationship is mediated by vigorous physical activity (VPA) engagement. METHODS: Five hundred and ninety-two children participated (age, 5.0 ± 0.6 yr) from the Coordination and Activity Tracking in CHildren study. Motor skills were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, with groups defined as having DCD (≤5th percentile), at risk for DCD (6th-16th percentile), and TD (>16th percentile). Measures of body composition included body mass index, waist circumference, and body fat percentage. Musculoskeletal fitness assessments included standing long jump distance, as well as peak and mean power assessed using a 30-s Wingate protocol on a pediatric cycle ergometer. Time to exhaustion on a progressive, treadmill test was used to determine aerobic fitness. Flexibility and VPA were assessed using a sit-and-reach test and 7-d accelerometry, respectively. RESULTS: Children in the DCD group had the poorest musculoskeletal and aerobic fitness, whereas TD children had the highest. No differences in body composition among groups were found. Daily VPA was similar among groups and did not explain HRF differences. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children with DCD have decreased anaerobic and aerobic fitness compared with TD children; however, VPA and body composition seem to be less affected by DCD in the early years. Early motor interventions may be able to improve fitness and reduce the risk of hypoactivity and obesity as children with DCD get older.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".