The association between infant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To synthesize findings of original articles examining the association between sleep-wake patterns of typically developing infants aged 0 to 18 months and cognitive and psychomotor development. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used to identify articles assessing the association between infant sleep (0 to 18 months) and cognitive/psychomotor development (Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS). Of 7136 articles screened, 22 articles met inclusion criteria, and the results were subsequently synthesized. A quality assessment was conducted, and studies were categorized as "poor," "fair," or "good." RESULTS: Out of 22 studies, 2 found exclusively significant associations (SAs) between infant sleep and cognitive/psychomotor development, 2 found no SAs and 17 found mixed results (MRs). Studies with exclusively significant results used a single sleep variable and single timepoint designs. Studies finding MRs or no SAs used multiple sleep, developmental variables, or multi-timepoint designs. Eight out of 10 studies and 7 out of 8 studies investigating nocturnal and total sleep duration, respectively, found no SA with developmental outcomes. While 63% of studies were rated as having good methodological quality, all studies but one had an estimated power of less than 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review do not support conclusive associations between sleep-wake patterns in infancy and cognitive/psychomotor development. This conclusion contrasts with the literature in older populations, questioning if the association between sleep and development is of a different nature in infancy, potentially because of brain maturation. More studies including larger samples will be needed to clarify the presence or absence of such an association.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".