Handwriting performance in preterm children compared with term peers at age 6 to 7 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preterm infants are at high risk for developmental impairments at school age. However, the impact of these impairments on important life skills, such as handwriting, is unknown. Forty-eight first-grade children (27 males, 21 females; mean age 6y 7mo, SD 3.9mo; range 6y 1mo to 7y 3mo) born preterm (birthweight <1250g; gestational age <34wks), without major physical or cognitive disabilities, were matched to 69 healthy, term control children (32 males, 37 females; mean age 6y 10mo, SD 3.6mo; range 6y 3mo to 7y 4mo) by sex and school class. All children were assessed using the Evaluation Tool of Children's Handwriting-Manuscript and several sensorimotor measures. Preterm children demonstrated significantly lower legibility and slower speed scores (p<0.01) compared with control children for most of the handwriting tasks. Factors associated with legibility were visual perception and eye-hand coordination (r≤0.50;p<0.05) and sex (r≤0.12;p=0.01). In-hand manipulation and finger identification (r≤0.43;p<0.01) were significantly correlated with slow handwriting speeds. Behaviour difficulties associated with hyperactivity and poor attention (Connors Abbreviated Symptoms Questionnaire) had a confounding influence on both legibility and speed. These findings may help guide early identification efforts and medical/therapeutic interventions for preterm 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 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) | 0.000 | 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".