Examining the relationship between infant feeding practices and child hyperactive/inattentive behaviours in a Canadian sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosed in childhood. It is largely accepted that ADHD is a product of gene-environment interactions and method of infant feeding has been proposed as a factor influencing the expression and/or severity of ADHD. The objectives of this study were to determine the relationship between infant feeding (i.e. formula feeding or breast feeding) and subsequent hyperactive/inattentive (H/I) behaviours and ADHD diagnosis and if the relationship between infant feeding and academic performance is moderated by H/I scale score. This study used data from the 2000/1, 2002/3, 2006/7 and 2008/9 cycles of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) (n= 3,895) to follow children longitudinally from the age of 0 to 1 years old to 6 to 7 years old. Infant feeding at 0 to 1 years old, and child H/I score, ADHD diagnosis and academic performance scores at 6 to 7 years old were reported by the biological mother. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to determine the relationship between infant feeding and H/I score, ADHD and academic performance adjusting for a range of sociodemographic, birth and home environment factors. Breastfeeding for more than 12 months was found to be significantly associated with decreased H/I scale scores in the most adjusted model (OR=0.3; 95% CI 0.2-0.8, p<0.01). Infant feeding was not associated with ADHD diagnosis and there was no moderating effect of the H/I score on the relationship between breastfeeding and academic performance. A small proportion of mothers breastfeed beyond one year in Canada and this study shows that there might be important child benefits incurred by breastfeeding for longer than 12 months.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".