Comparison of Executive Functions in School Children Aged 7 to 12 Years in a State of Malnutrition Due to Thinness, Risk of Thinness and a Control Group of an Educational Institution of the Locality of Ciudad Bolívar- Bogotá, D.C.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to compare the neuropsychological performance of executive functions of school children in a state of malnutrition caused by thinness and risk of thinness and a control group of a District educational institution of the locality of Ciudad Bolívar in Bogotá, Colombia. The research used a descriptive cross-sectional comparative design, where children aged between 7 and 12 years were selected based on the diagnosis of malnutrition. The executive functions assessed were fluency, working memory, problem solving, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility, through the Neuropsychological Battery for Children [ENI, for its Spanish acronym] and the original version of Stroop and Wisconsin tests. Results showed statistically significant differences in executive functioning between the children with thinness, thinness risk and the control group. The students with thinness showed a low performance in verbal fluency, visual fluency, working memory, cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control compared with students in a state of malnutrition due to thinness risk and those with normal weight (control group). In conclusion, a strong association was found between the effect of child malnutrition and poor performance in executive tasks where there is evidence that executive functioning is more affected in children with malnutrition due to thinness (severe malnutrition) than in children with malnutrition due to thinness risk and in those of the control group.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".