Functioning of children and adolescents with Down syndrome and the association with environmental barriers and facilitators during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare functioning and environmental aspects before and during physical distancing (DPD) and to determine which social, physical, behavioral and functioning aspects of DPD are correlated. METHODS: Sixteen parents of children/adolescents with Down syndrome (11.38 ± 3.00 years) were surveyed before and DPD. Paired t-tests were used to compare functioning and environmental aspects before and DPD and chi-square tests were used to test associations. RESULTS: There were increases in the frequency (p < 0.001) and involvement (p = 0.01) in home participation and on the impact, noticed by the parents, of the possibility of child to participate in daily activities (p = 0.036), as well as a reduction in social supports perceived by caregivers (p = 0.049). An association was found between the child's socio-emotional difficulties symptoms and practice of physical activity (p = 0.043) and with parents' satisfaction with the level of child's home participation (p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Functioning can be affected in either positive or negative ways.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".