MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805340190 · doi:10.1111/nyas.13868

Neuroimaging, neuromodulation, and population health: the neuroscience of chronic disease prevention

2018· review· en· W2805340190 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Hall, Warren K. Bickel, Kirk I. Erickson, Dylan D. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institute on Drug AbuseSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Development Administration
KeywordsModerationPsychologyNeuromodulationNeuroimagingDiseasePopulationNeuroscienceMedicineDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preventable chronic diseases are the leading cause of death in the majority of countries throughout the world, and this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. The potential to offset the social, economic, and personal burdens associated with such conditions depends on our ability to influence people's thought processes, decisions, and behaviors, all of which can be understood with reference to the brain itself. Within the health neuroscience framework, the brain can be viewed as a predictor, mediator, moderator, or outcome in relation to health-related phenomena. This review explores examples of each of these, with specific reference to the primary prevention (i.e., prevention of initial onset) of chronic diseases. Within the topic of primary prevention, we touch on several cross-cutting themes (persuasive communications, delay discounting of rewards, and self-control), and place a special focus on obesity as a disorder influenced by both eating behavior and exercise habits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207