Neurocognitive influences on health behavior in a community sample.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Dominant models of individual health behavior omit biological variables entirely and are composed almost exclusively of social-cognitive and conative variables. Research from the neurosciences suggests a role for brain function in explaining behaviors that require active self-regulation for consistent performance. However, the association between brain function and health behavior is underexplored. OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive power of executive function for 2 health risk behaviors and 2 health protective behaviors in healthy adults. DESIGN: A cross-sectional community sample (N = 216) of adults 20-100 years of age were administered a battery of neuropsychological tests and completed self-report questionnaires regarding their health practices. It was hypothesized that poor performance on neuropsychological tests tapping executive function would be associated with poor health behavior tendencies. RESULTS: Errors on the Stroop task were positively associated with health risk behavior and negatively associated with health protective behavior after controlling for demographics, education, and IQ. CONCLUSION: Executive function is associated with health behavior tendencies. If the association is causal, explanatory models of individual health behavior should be revised to account for individual differences in biologically imbued self-regulatory abilities.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it