Motor Proficiency and Generalized Self‐Efficacy Toward Physical Activity in Children With Intestinal Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Survival rates of children with intestinal failure have increased; however, associated co-morbidities may affect long-term motor developmental outcomes. This study evaluates motor proficiency and generalized self-efficacy toward physical activity (PA) in children ages 6 to 12 years with intestinal failure. METHODS: This is an observational, cross-sectional study of children followed in a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation program. Motor proficiency was assessed using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 Short Form (BOT-2 SF) and the Scales of Independent Behavior (parent-proxy report). Children completed the Children's Self-Perceptions of Adequacy in and Predilection for Physical Activity (CSAPPA) and a PA questionnaire. Relevant demographic and medical variables were correlated with assessment results. RESULTS: Participants include 30 children (18 males), median age 7 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6-9) with gestational age 35 weeks (IQR 32-39) and birth weight 2.13 kg (IQR 1.68-2.77). Thirteen (43%) were dependent on parenteral nutrition. Fifteen (50%) scored below average on the BOT-2 SF. Lower BOT-2 SF scores were significantly associated with lower CSAPPA scores (r = 0.480, P = 0.01), with a common barrier to PA being the presence of a central line or enterostomy tube. Gestational age, height z scores, length of hospital admissions, and number of septic events were all significantly correlated with lower scores in motor proficiency. Number of septic events and total parenteral nutrition days were significant predictors of lower BOT-2 SF scores, when adjusting for birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple medical variables related to intestinal failure may affect motor proficiency and PA self-efficacy. Developmental follow-up is important to optimize motor skill development and promote PA participation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".