Growth and muscle strength development in children with developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess effects of growth on lower limb maximal isometric muscle strength (MIMS) development in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). METHOD: This observational study used hand-held dynamometry to evaluate MIMS (hip abductors, flexors, extensors; knee flexors and extensors; ankle dorsiflexors) in children with DCD (n=33, 12 females, 21 males, 6-12y, mean [SD] age 9y [2y]). Regression analysis compared changes in MIMS for similar changes in growth (height or body mass) for children with DCD and typically developing children (pre-existing database, n=183), controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: For the same height gain, the gain in muscle strength was 37.3% to 69.2% less in children with DCD compared with typically developing children, with significantly lower slopes (p-value between <0.001-0.042) in all muscle groups tested except knee extensors and ankle dorsiflexors in females. Strength gains related to body mass gains were not different for children with DCD compared to typically developing children. INTERPRETATION: Even when growing at a similar rate, children with DCD do not develop muscle strength gains at the same rate as their typically developing peers. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Strength gains with growth (height) may be reduced in children with developmental coordination disorder.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".