Excessive body weight in developmental coordination disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence on the link between developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and obesity and overweight is mixed. Based on a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42023429432), we conducted the first systematic review/meta-analysis on the association between DCD and excessive weight. Web of Science, PubMed and an institutional database aggregator were searched until the 18th of December 2023. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and study heterogeneity using Q and I2 statistics. Data from 22 studies were combined, comprising 11,330 individuals out of which 1861 had DCD. The main analysis showed a significant association between DCD and higher body weight (OR:1.87, 95 % CI =1.43, 2.44). Meta-regression analyses indicated that the relationship was mediated by age, with stronger effects in studies with higher mean age (p 0.004). We conclude that DCD is associated with obesity and overweight, and this association increases with age. Our study could help to implement targeted prevention and intervention measures.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".