Functional Impairments in Patients with Joint Hypermobility Syndrome and Developmental Coordination Disorder In IFOMPT 2012: A Rendez-Vous of Hands and Minds, September 30–October 5, 2012, Québec City, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate functional difficulties in patients with joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) and an association with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). RELEVANCE: There is experimental evidence to show that patients with JHS have poor proprioception and balance. Clinical experience suggests that patients with JHS report �clumsiness,� tripping, and falling and that these motor skill impairments may be associated with DCD. METHODS: A sample of 90 patients with JHS (mean SD age, 34.7 SD 9.9 years; 83 women) diagnosed according to the Brighton criteria were compared with 113 healthy volunteers (mean SD age, 35.7 SD 12.9 years; 82 women) with no musculoskeletal pain. Information relating to DCD and functional impairments was collected by means of the self-report functional difficulties questionnaire (FDQ-9). Numerical data were analyzed using independent-samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U. Individual items of the FDQ-9 were analyzed using a chi-square test. RESULTS: Patients with JHS reported significantly higher functional difficulties scores (M, 22.28 SD 4.90) than healthy volunteers (M, 17.97 SD 3.72; P<.001), indicating greater functional difficulties. Patients with JHS were 3 times (95% CI: 2.0, 4.6) more likely to report DCD than healthy volunteers. Patients with JHS and DCD were significantly more likely to report impaired balance and obstacle-avoidance skills than healthy volunteers with DCD. CONCLUSIONS: This study established that gross motor skill impairments reported by patients with JHS are associated with DCD. Patients with JHS and DCD are likely to report poor balance and therefore may be at risk of falls. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the prevalence of functional difficulties reported by patients with JHS and DCD. It is suggested there is a requirement to assess and treat the perceptual impairments that contribute to these functional difficulties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".