Neurocognitive Performance of African Americans and Hispanic Adults in Relation to Diet and Physical Activity: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As minorities, African Americans (AAs) and Hispanic adults face enormous discrepancies across many dimensions, including race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, legal status, gender, insurance status, or severity of conditions. There is a lot of evidence in the literature about the relationship between lifestyle and cognitive functioning in older adults. However, due to the infancy of research in this area, the relationship between diet, physical activity and cognitive decline in ethnic minorities remains unclear. We discussed the neurocognitive changes associated with physical activity and/or dietary aspects in Hispanic and AA adults, and explored various factors that affect physical activity and dietary changes in this population. Our analysis confirmed the convincing link between certain dietary patterns, physical inactivity and poor cognitive performance in AA and Hispanic adults. This report allowed us to draw necessary conclusions regarding the structure of Jacobi Frailty Initiative in the Bronx, NY, USA. J Neurol Res. 2020;10(3):56-68 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr594
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".