Breastfeeding and handedness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine whether breastfeeding duration affects the prevalence of nonrighthandedness in later life. A systematic search for studies on this topic was completed in 2018, and risk of bias was assessed by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Seven national surveys in five countries with Individual Participant Data (IPD) were identified (n = 62,129 mother-child dyads). These surveys had low risk of bias. An IPD meta-analysis showed that breastfeeding for < 1 month, 1 to 6 months, and > 6 months, when compared to bottle feeding, was associated with a 9%, 15% and 22% decreased prevalence of nonrighthandedness, respectively (Prevalence Ratio (PR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.83, 1.00; p-value = 0.05, PR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.92; p-value < 0.0001 and PR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.85; p-value < 0.0001). This dose-response relationship was significant (p < 0.001). No significant heterogeneity across surveys was detected (p-value > 0.54). Breastfeeding for longer than 9 months was not associated with further reductions in the prevalence for nonrighthandedness (p > 0.58). It is concluded that the critical age window for establishing hemispheric dominance in handedness includes the first 9 months of infancy and is in part determined by nurture.
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 | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".