Unraveling the effects of maternal breastfeeding duration and exclusive breast milk on children’s cognitive abilities in early childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the putative associations between mothers' use of exclusive breast milk and the duration of breastfeeding with child cognitive development. Methods: This study is based on 2,210 Canadian families with children assessed longitudinally from age 4 to 7 years on their memory-span and math skills. These cognitive abilities were measured with standardized tasks. Breastfeeding practices were collected via maternal reports. We applied propensity scores to control the social selection bias for breastfeeding. Results: Results adjusted for propensity scores and sample weight revealed no significant differences between non-breastfed children with those being non-exclusively breastfed for 5 months or less, and with children being exclusively breastfed for 9.2 months on average, on their early math skills and memory-span. We found that children who were non-exclusively breastfed for 6.8 months on average had a slightly higher levels of memory-span at age 4 than children who were never breastfed, and this small but significant difference lasted up to age 7. Conclusion: Our findings suggest no significant differences between children being exclusively breastfed and those fed with formula on their early math skills and memory-span. The encouragement of breastfeeding to promote child cognitive school readiness may, in some case (non-exclusive breastfeeding for more than 5 months), show a small but long-lasting advantage in early memory-span.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".