Dimensions of physical activity as related to child attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In efforts to explore adjunct/alternative treatments for ADHD, this study investigated the associations between dimensions of physical activity (PA) and children's ADHD symptoms and impairment. Current evidence-based treatments include medication and behaviour management, but there is widespread consensus that more treatment options are desirable. Although there is increasing support for PA as an adjunct/alternative to existing treatment for ADHD, the interplay of specific dimensions of PA has not been studied. Fifty-one parents of children aged 6-12 years with ADHD filled out questionnaires. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that only some dimensions of PA explained a statistically significant portion of the variance in ADHD symptoms, beyond that explained by typical demographic variables. PA dimensions did not account for a statistically significant portion of ADHD impairment. Refining the measurement of how long children have engaged in PA is a key step in generating evidence for PA as an adjunct or alternate treatment for ADHD, and developing guidelines to manage parental expectations for this treatment in the benefit of their children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".