Maternal Thiamine Supplementation Promotes Infants’ Language Processing at 24 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, researchers observed a link between infants’ access to thiamine (vitamin B1) and their subsequent language functioning: infants fed formula that inadvertently lacked thiamine later displayed significant delays in language and motor development. In the context of a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, the present research provided the first experimental test of a relationship between early life thiamine exposure and infants’ early language processing. 335 lactating mothers were randomly assigned to receive capsules containing either 0, 1.2, 2.4, or 10 mg of thiamine daily, from 2 weeks postpartum until infants were 24 weeks. We assessed the integrity of 24-week-old infants’ developing system for language processing by measuring the extent to which they displayed attentional enhancement in response to infant-directed speech (IDS) relative to adult-directed speech (ADS). Such IDS-related attentional enhancement implies that infants can differentiate IDS from ADS, which requires underlying skills for analysis of the complex stream of sound that human speech embodies. Of the 335 infants in the study, analyzable data for the IDS preference task were available for 251. As predicted, a greater-than-chance percentage of all infants displayed enhanced attention to IDS relative to ADS, replicating prior research (one-sample t(250) = 3.06, P = 0.002). The magnitude of the IDS-elicited attentional-enhancement increased significantly in relation to the thiamine dose that lactating mothers received (beta-weight 0.007, t = 2.57, P = 0.011). Notably, however, when supplementation groups were examined separately, only infants whose mothers received the 10 mg daily supplement displayed a statistically significant IDS-related attentional enhancement (10 mg group: one-sample t(63) = 4.14, P = 0.000; all other groups t’s < 1.41, P’s > 0.16). Taken together, these findings confirm a link between infants’ post-natal access to thiamine and their language processing facility at 24 weeks. The findings both showcase the value of the IDS preference task for monitoring the integrity of infants’ language processing, and underscore the importance of adequate thiamine for ensuring infants’ optimal language development. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the New York Academy of Sciences.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".