Specific Learning Disorder in Children and Adolescents, a Scoping Review on Motor Impairments and Their Potential Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mastering motor skills is important for children to achieve functional mobility and participate in daily activities. Some studies have identified that students with specific learning disorders (SLD) could have impaired motor skills; however, this postulate and the potential impacts remain unclear. The purpose of the scoping review was to evaluate if SLD children have motor impairments and examine the possible factors that could interfere with this assumption. The sub-objective was to investigate the state of knowledge on the lifestyle behavior and physical fitness of participants with SLD and to discuss possible links with their motor skills. Our scoping review included preregistration numbers and the redaction conformed with the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 34 studies published between 1990 and 2022 were identified. The results of our scoping review reflected that students with SLD have poorer motor skills than their peers. These motor impairments are exacerbated by the complexity of the motor activities and the presence of comorbidities. These results support our sub-objective and highlight the link between motor impairments and the sedentary lifestyle behavior of SLDs. This could lead to deteriorating health and motor skills due to a lack of motor experience, meaning that this is not necessarily a comorbidity. This evidence emphasizes the importance of systematic clinical motor assessments and physical activity adaptations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".