Breastfeeding and early brain development: the <scp>G</scp>eneration <scp>R</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breastfeeding during infancy is associated with a range of short- and long-term health benefits. We examine whether breastfeeding in the first 2 months of life is associated with structural markers of brain development in infants from the general population. This study was embedded within the Generation R study. Cranial ultrasounds were obtained at approximately 7 weeks post-natal age. The diameter of the gangliothalamic ovoid, corpus callosum length, ventricular volume and head circumference were measured. Maternal reports of breastfeeding were obtained at 2 months of age. We examined associations in relation to current breastfeeding practices (exclusively breastfed, n = 318, breast- and bottle-fed, n = 119, and bottle-fed, n = 243). Analyses were adjusted for head size and relevant covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted for breastfeeding history (exclusively breastfed, n = 318, breast- and bottle-fed, n = 281, and never breastfed, n = 81). Exclusive breastfeeding was associated with more optimal brain development compared with babies who were bottle-fed or never breastfed. Results were most consistent for gangliothalamic ovoid diameter. Larger gangliothalamic ovoid diameters were evident in babies who were exclusively breastfed compared with bottle-fed babies [difference between means (95% confidence interval) = 0.21(0.02, 0.39), P = 0.02]. Smaller ventricular volume and larger head circumference were also found for exclusively breastfed babies. Breastfeeding was not significantly associated with corpus callosum length. Maternal reports of breastfeeding are associated with more mature brain development within the first 2 months of life. Results are most consistent for gangliothalamic ovoid diameter, a subcortical structure rich in docosahexaenoic acid. Findings also pointed to non-specific neural developmental advantage for exclusively breastfed babies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".