Associations Between Sleep-Wake Consolidation and Language Development in Early Childhood: A Longitudinal Twin Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The objectives were (1) to assess associations between sleep consolidation at 6, 18 and 30 months and language skills at 18, 30, and 60 months; and (2) to investigate the genetic/environmental etiology of these associations. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of a population-based twin cohort. PARTICIPANTS: 1029 twins from the Quebec Newborn Twin Study. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Sleep consolidation was derived from parental reports of day/night consecutive sleeping durations. Language skills were assessed with the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory at 18 and 30 months and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test at 60 months. The day/night sleep ratio decreased significantly from 6 to 30 months. The 6- and 18-month ratios were negatively correlated with subsequent language skills. Children with language delays at 60 months had less mature sleep consolidation at both 6 and 18 months than children without delays and those with transient early delays. Genetic and regression analyses revealed that the sleep ratio at 6 months was highly heritable (64%) and predicted 18-month (B = -0.06) and 30-month language (B = -0.11) mainly through additive genetic influences (R(Gs) = 0.32 and 0.33, respectively). By contrast, the sleep ratio at 18 months was mainly due to shared environment influences (58%) and predicted 60-month language (B = -0.08) through shared environment influences (R(Cs) = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Poor sleep consolidation during the first 2 years of life may be a risk factor for language learning, whereas good sleep consolidation may foster language learning through successive genetic and environmental influences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".