A design for life: Predicting cognitive performance from lifestyle choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining cognitive capacity through adulthood has been the target of many recent studies that have examined the influence of lifestyle choices such as exercise, diet, and sleeping habits. Many of these studies have focused on a single factor (e.g., diet) and its effect on cognitive abilities; however, humans make numerous lifestyle choices every single day, many of which interact and influence each other. Here, we investigated whether combinations of lifestyle choices can predict better or worse cognitive performance in the general population, and whether optimal combinations of choices existed depending on the cognitive domain. Specifically, we examined 20 self-reported lifestyle choices, such as playing video games, drinking alcohol, and amount of exercise taken, in a sample of almost 10,000 participants. All participants also completed 12 cognitive tests that have been shown to generate three composite cognitive domain scores pertaining to short-term memory, verbal abilities, and reasoning. Using recursive feature elimination and random forest regression, we were able to explain 9% of the variance in short-term memory scores, 8% of the variance in reasoning scores, and 7% of the variance in verbal ability scores. While the regression model provided predictive power in all three domains, these levels indicate that even when considering a large number of lifestyle choices, there remains a considerable degree of variability in predicting short-term memory, reasoning and verbal abilities. Thus, while some modifiable lifestyle factors may have an impact on cognitive capacity, there likely exists no single optimal design for life.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".