Are there gross motor coordination spurts during mid‐childhood?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The aims of this study were (1) to identify the timing of the mid‐growth spurt (MGS) in stature in children and (2) to identify gross motor coordination (GMC) spurts when aligned by the age of attainment of the MGS (aMGS). Methods Stature, weight, and GMC were measured in 245 Portuguese children followed annually from 6 to 10 years. GMC was assessed and to estimate children's MGS in stature as well as GMC spurts in each of the four tests aligned by aMGS, we used a nonsmoothed polynomial methodology. Results In boys, the aMGS was attained at 7.8 years, whereas in girls it was 8.0 years. In boys, the peak MGS was 6.2 cm∙yr −1 and in girls it was 6.4 cm∙yr −1 . In boys, the peak for walking backwards (WB) occurred 18 months before aMGS (14.9‐points∙yr −1 ), jumping sideways (JS) was 12 months after aMGS (13.5‐points∙yr −1 ), hopping on one leg (HO) was 18 months before aMGS (11.7‐points∙yr −1 ), and shifting platform (SP) was 12 months before aMGS (6.8‐points∙yr −1 ). In girls, WB spurts occurred 12 months after aMGS (13.3‐points∙yr −1 ), JS was 12 months before aMGS (10.5‐points∙yr −1 ), HO was coincident with aMGS (10.4‐points∙yr −1 ), and SP was 18 as well as 12 months before aMGS (7.2‐points∙yr −1 ). No differences were observed in the mean peak spurts between sexes in the GMC tests. Conclusions Boys and girls reached their MGS in stature at about the same chronological age. Spurts in GMC did not express themselves in the same biological timing relative to aMGS in stature, and there are sex differences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".