A Review of the Effects of Lunch: On Adults’ Short-term Cognitive Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of widespread irregular lunch consumption by both children and adults, information on the effects of lunch on short-term cognitive functioning is relevant to public health. In September 2012, a MEDLINE search was conducted for studies in which the effects of lunch on cognitive performance were examined. Eleven experimental studies published from 1981 to 1996 were found and evaluated; all involved adults. In three studies, the effects of lunch and lunch skipping were compared; the remaining studies involved a determination of the effects of lunch size and lunch composition. Results of studies in which lunch was compared with no lunch indicate that lunch leads to potential impairment of some aspects of cognitive functioning in the early afternoon. Lunch size may influence cognitive functioning, with impairment more likely to occur after a large lunch than a small lunch. Furthermore, in comparison with low-fat lunches, high-fat lunches seem to result in slower but more accurate responses to some cognitive tasks. However, these suggestions must be viewed with caution, as they are based on only a few studies and are not thoroughly supported by high-quality evidence. In addition, results obtained with adults are not applicable to children. Thus, the potential effects of lunch need further examination in children and adults.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".