MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989889129 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030709

Fit for School Study protocol: early child growth, health behaviours, nutrition, cardiometabolic risk and developmental determinants of a child’s school readiness, a prospective cohort

2019· article· en· W2989889129 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine S. Birken, Jessica Omand, Kim M Nurse, Cornelia M. Borkhoff, Christine Koroshegyi, Gerald Lebovic, Jonathon L. Maguire, Muhammad Mamdani, Patricia C. Parkin, Janis Randall Simpson, Mark S. Tremblay, Eric Duku, Caroline Reid‐Westoby, Magdalena Janus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationUniversity of GuelphHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCohort studyEnvironmental healthChild healthPublic healthEpidemiologyProtocol (science)CohortGerontologyPediatricsChild developmentFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: School readiness is a multidimensional construct that includes cognitive, behavioural and emotional aspects of a child's development. School readiness is strongly associated with a child's future school success and well-being. The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a reliable and valid teacher-completed tool for assessing school readiness in children at kindergarten age. A substantial knowledge gap exists in understanding how early child growth, health behaviours, nutrition, cardiometabolic risk and development impact school readiness. The primary objective was to determine if growth patterns, measured by body mass index trajectories in healthy children aged 0-5 years, are associated with school readiness at ages 4-6 years (kindergarten age). Secondary objectives were to determine if other health trajectories, including health behaviours, nutrition, cardiometabolic risk and development, are associated with school readiness at ages 4-6 years. This paper presents the Fit for School Study protocol. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an ongoing prospective cohort study. Parents of children enrolled in the The Applied Health Research Group for Kids (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network are invited to participate in the Fit for School Study. Child growth, health behaviours, nutrition, cardiometabolic risk and development data are collected annually at health supervision visits and linked to EDI data collected by schools. The primary and secondary analyses will use a two-stage process: (1) latent class growth models will be used to first determine trajectory groups, and (2) generalised linear mixed models will be used to examine the relationship between exposures and EDI results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research ethics boards at The Hospital for Sick Children, Unity Health Toronto and McMaster University approved this study, and research ethics approval was obtained from each school board with a student participating in the study. The findings will be presented locally, nationally and internationally and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01869530.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207