ArticleData in brief2024
Development of potential dysgraphia handwriting dataset.
Article in Data in brief, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This report presents a dataset of offline handwriting samples among Malaysian schoolchildren with potential dysgraphia. The images contained Malay sentences written by primary school students and children under intervention by the Malaysia Dyslexia Association (PDM). Students were expected to copy and write the sentences provided on the paper form that was used to gather data. Students were required to write three sets of sentences. The paper was digitalized by scanning it and converting it into digital form. Furthermore, the images were pre-processed using image processing techniques by converting the images into binary format and interchanging the foreground and background colors. The images were then classified into two categories, namely potential dysgraphia and low potential dysgraphia. The dataset comprised a total of 249 handwriting images, obtained from a sample of 83 participants who were selected in the data collection process, with 114 for potential dysgraphia and 135 for low potential dysgraphia. Both categories of handwriting images were prepared in black and white images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.