Long‐term behavioural consequences of infant feeding: the limits of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational (non-experimental) studies of the association between infant feeding and subsequent child or adult behaviour are prone to residual confounding by subtle differences in psychological attributes and interactional styles of mothers who breast feed vs. those who formula-feed. We followed up 13,889 6.5-year-old Belarusian children who participated in a large cluster-randomised trial of a breast-feeding promotion intervention. Behaviour was evaluated using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), completed independently by the children's parents and teachers. We compared the results of experimental (intention-to-treat, ITT) and observational analyses (based on feeding actually received), both adjusted for clustering. Observational analyses were additionally adjusted for geographical region, urban vs. rural residence, child's sex, age at follow-up, birthweight, and maternal and paternal education. No differences between the randomised experimental vs. control groups were observed in ITT analyses. In contrast, small but statistically significant associations with weaning prior to 3 months were observed for parent and teacher SDQ scores on total difficulties, conduct problems and hyperactivity, even after multivariable adjustment. The absence of associations based on ITT analyses, in contrast with the significant associations based on observed breast-feeding duration, strongly suggests that the latter are biased by residual confounding.
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 | 0.211 | 0.426 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".