Physical activity in young children at risk for developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine cross-sectional differences in patterns of daily physical activity accumulation between preschool children at risk for developmental coordination disorder (DCD) compared to typically developing children. METHOD: In total, 514 children (292 males, 222 females; 4-5y) were recruited as part of the Coordination and Activity Tracking in CHildren (CATCH) study. Motor competence was assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition; children scoring ≤5th centile comprised the probable DCD group (pDCD, n=87), between the 6th and 16th centile were considered to be at risk for DCD (rDCD, n=149), and >16th centile were considered typically developing (n=278). Seven-day physical activity was measured using hip-worn accelerometers. Average daily intensity of activity, frequency, and duration of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) bouts, and triaxial activity counts per minute were determined. RESULTS: No differences in daily activity in any intensity or axis of movement were found among the three groups. However, young children with pDCD accumulated their MVPA in slightly shorter bouts compared to typically developing children. INTERPRETATION: Young children at risk for DCD are not yet in an activity deficit. This may be because of the low motor skill demands of play in this age group. Early motor interventions may be able to promote continued physical activity participation in children with DCD. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Preschool children at risk for developmental coordination disorder (DCD) are not less active than their peers. Overall intensity and frequency of daily activity bouts are similar among motor groups. Children with probable DCD accumulate their activity in shorter bouts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".