Evaluating the effect of interventions in children with Developmental coordination disorder; Systemic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of intervention improving the children's performance diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Additionally, this study finds the optimal therapeutic intervention selection for treating DCD symptoms. Methodology A systematic review of potential literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive electronic search across PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and Google Scholar from January 2010 to October 2022 was performed among children with DCD. We assessed the standard mean difference of intervention within and between the studies. The quality assessment of randomized and non-randomized control trials is performed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale respectively. Results This review includes 19 potential studies involving 553 children with DCD. The most frequently reported experimental interventions were trampoline therapy, Wii-fit training, task- oriented training, virtual reality training, motor imaginary therapy, active video games (AVG), and cognitive orientation occupation performance (CO-OP). This study found that children in the experimental group had a higher level of improvement than those in the comparator or control group. Conclusion Body function and activity-oriented...
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".