Childhood motor performance is increased by participation in organized sport: the CHAMPS Study-DK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that motor performance in children is declining globally. We tested whether participation in organized sport is associated with motor performance, and estimate the effect of 30 months participation in organized sport on motor performance. Study participants were 1067 primary school students, enrolled in the Danish Childhood Health, Activity, and Motor Performance School study. Participation in organized sport was reported via text messaging. Coordination-related motor performance composite, fitness-related motor performance composite, and total motor performance composite were calculated. Data were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations. Participation in organized sport was positively associated with motor performance (all composites) in models that did and did not control for baseline motor performance. For models that did not control for baseline motor performance, this equated to 2-6% increases in motor performance per weekly sport session; for models that did control for baseline motor performance, this equated to 1-5% increases in motor performance per weekly sport session. Positive associations between participation in organized sport and motor performance identify participation in organized sport as a way to improve motor performance in children. These results might provide the basis to determine whether participation in organized sport could be beneficial for children with developmental movement disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".