Is Quarter of Birth a Risk Factor for Developmental Coordinator Disorder in Preschool Children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the probability that preschool children have severe motor difficulties or are at risk of motor difficulties, according to quarter of birth and gender. Five hundred and eighty-eight preschool-age children were evaluated, of which 318 (54.08%) were boys and 270 (45.92%) were girls, with a mean age of 4.66 years (SD = 0.53). The Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) was used to collect the data. The results obtained were the following: Regarding students with severe motor difficulties: 6.7% born in quarter 1 (Q1); 13.3% born in the second quarter (Q2); 20.0% born in the third quarter (Q3); and 60.0% born in the fourth quarter (Q4). The probabilities found (OR) were: Q1 vs. Q2 (OR = 3.15; p < 0.05); Q1 vs. Q3 (OR = 4.68; p < 0.005); Q1 vs. Q4 (OR = 12.40; p < 0.001); Q2 vs. Q4 (OR = 4.04; p < 0.001); and Q3 vs. Q4 (OR = 2.65; p < 0.005). The adjusted ORs, with respect to the probabilities of having severe motor difficulties, were the following: Being born in Q4 is 13.03 times more likely than being born in Q1 (p < 0.001); those born in Q3 are 4.85 times more likely than those born in Q1 (p < 0.05); and those born in Q2 4.14 times more than those born in Q1 (p < 0.05). The conclusion is that children born in Q4 are more likely to be classified as children with severe difficulties compared to children born in the other quarters of the same year.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".