Higher Meal Consumption Predicts Slightly Higher Attentiveness for Population

Higher Meal Consumption Predicts Slightly Higher Attentiveness for Population

Contents

Variables

A
Meal 78
A
Attentiveness 1093

Categories

A
Foods 13415
A
Emotions 2028

Actions

A
Join Study
A
Your Data

Tags

Low Confidence
Weak Effect Size
Positive Relationship
Population Study
cause image gauge image effect image
Participants reported a 6.8% average increase in Attentiveness following above average Meal Consumption.

Abstract

Attentiveness was generally 2% higher than average after a total of 17.5 serving of Meal over the previous 14 days.

Aggregated data from 2 study participants suggests with a LOW degree of confidence (p=0.278, 95% CI -0.375 to 0.8) that Meal has a weakly positive predictive relationship (R=0.212) with Attentiveness.

The highest quartile of Attentiveness measurements were observed following an average 31.5 serving Meal per day.

The lowest quartile of Attentiveness measurements were observed following an average 23 serving of Meal per day.

After an onset delay of 30 minutes, Attentiveness is typically 2% lower than average over the 14 days following around 23 serving of Meal Meal.

Keywords: Meal, Attentiveness, N-of-1 trials, real-world evidence, causal inference, observational study

Preliminary: Based on 2 participants. Results may change as more data is collected.

Results

Primary Findings

Analysis of 58 paired observations from 2 participants revealed a minimal improvement in Attentiveness following above-average Meal exposure.

+3.5%
Change from Baseline
Minimal effect on Attentiveness
0.04
Predictor Impact Score
Insufficient evidence for causal relationship

Supporting Statistics

Low
Confidence
0.212
Correlation (r)
p = 0.218
Significance
z = 0.21
Effect Magnitude
φ = 1.00
Temporality

What This Means

When participants had above-average Meal:

  • Attentiveness increased by 3.5% on average
  • Temporal analysis supports Meal as the predictor (not the outcome)

Interpreting the Predictor Impact Score

The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) integrates multiple Bradford Hill causal criteria into a single metric. Use this guide to interpret the score:

PIS Range Interpretation Recommended Action
≥ 0.5 Strong evidence High priority for RCT validation
0.3 - 0.5 Moderate evidence Consider for experimental investigation
0.1 - 0.3 Weak evidence Monitor for additional data
< 0.1 Insufficient evidence Low priority; may be noise

Note: PIS is a prioritization heuristic, not proof of causation. High scores indicate relationships worth investigating, not confirmed causal effects. With only 2 participants, these scores are preliminary and will become more reliable as additional data is collected.

Optimal Daily Values (Precision Dosing)

Based on the observed relationship, we can estimate the predictor values associated with the best and worst outcomes. These values enable personalized dosing recommendations.

⚠️ Preliminary Data: With 2 participants and 58 observations, these optimal values are preliminary estimates. As more data is collected, precision will improve significantly.

17.5 serving
Value Predicting Higher Attentiveness
Average Meal when Attentiveness exceeded its mean
5.2 serving
Value Predicting Lower Attentiveness
Average Meal when Attentiveness was below its mean

What This Suggests

Attentiveness tended to be highest when Meal was around 17.5 serving.

Important: These values reflect correlations, not guaranteed causal effects. Individual responses may vary. Use as a starting point for personal experimentation, not as a definitive prescription. Consult healthcare providers before making treatment decisions.

Population Correlation

Meal Distribution

Attentiveness Distribution

Statistical Summary

Relationship Statistics

Property Value
Cause Variable Name Meal Consumption
Effect Variable Name Attentiveness
Sinn Predictive Coefficient 0.038501588819838
Confidence Level LOW
Confidence Interval 0.58764911303805
Forward Pearson Predictive Coefficient 0.2124
Critical T Value 1.7545
Total Meal Consumption Over Previous 14 days Before ABOVE Average Attentiveness 31.5 serving
Total Meal Consumption Over Previous 14 days Before BELOW Average Attentiveness 23 serving
Duration of Action 14 days
Effect Size weakly positive
Number of Paired Measurements 58
Optimal Pearson Product 0.10031817918018
P Value 0.27777938402616
Statistical Significance 0.2176
Strength of Relationship 0.58764911303805
Study Type population
Analysis Performed At 2026-01-04
Number of Participants 2

Meal Info

Property Value
Variable Name Meal
Aggregation Method SUM
Analysis Performed At 2020-10-11
Duration of Action 14 days
Filling Value 0
Kurtosis 8.2259208581194
Maximum Allowed Value 40 serving
Mean 0.587302 serving
Median 0.16666666666667 serving
Minimum Allowed Value 0 serving
Number of Aggregate Predictors 0
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 78
Number of Measurements 112
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 112
Public true
Onset Delay 30 minutes
Standard Deviation 1.0024246735718
Unit Serving
User Variables 7
Variable Category Foods
Variable ID 5863931
Variance 1.2877879218528

Attentiveness Info

Property Value
Variable Name Attentiveness
Aggregation Method MEAN
Analysis Performed At 2020-09-17
Duration of Action 24 hours
Kurtosis 2.8989604447383
Maximum Allowed Value 5 out of 5
Mean 2.6104259171135 out of 5
Median 2.603650254387 out of 5
Minimum Allowed Value 1 out of 5
Number of Aggregate Predictors 979
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 114
Number of Measurements 20541
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 20486
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 0.46181906465469
Unit 1 to 5 Rating
User Variables 1464
UPC 0
Variable Category Emotions
Variable ID 1267
Variance 0.46818963151551

Introduction

Background

Meal (Foods) and Attentiveness (Emotions) are both important factors in understanding human health and well-being. This study investigates the relationship between these two variables using real-world observational data.

Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for causal inference, are often impractical, expensive, or unethical for studying many health relationships. Aggregated N-of-1 observational studies offer a complementary approach that leverages within-subject comparisons across large populations to identify meaningful patterns.

Research Question

Does Meal affect Attentiveness?

Additionally, we seek to determine:

  1. What is the direction and magnitude of any effect?
  2. How confident can we be in this relationship based on the available data?
  3. What are the optimal levels of Meal for maximizing Attentiveness?

Study Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between Meal and Attentiveness. Additionally, we attempt to determine the Meal values most likely to produce optimal Attentiveness values.

Study Overview

This is a population-level observational study using aggregated N-of-1 methodology. By aggregating individual N-of-1 experiments, we can identify population-level patterns while accounting for the substantial individual variation that exists in most health relationships. Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline, enabling intuitive interpretation and comparison across different measures.

Full Methodology: Framework for Real-World Evidence-Based Pharmacovigilance: Aggregated N-of-1 Trials for Quantifying Treatment Effects

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings

Participants experienced a 3.5% improvement in Attentiveness following above-average Meal exposure. The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) of 0.04 indicates insufficient evidence for a causal relationship.

Statistical Significance

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Attentiveness is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the Meal value may not have a significant influence on the Attentiveness value, or that more data is needed to detect an effect.

After treatment, a 6.8% increase (0.112 out of 5) from the mean baseline 2.85 out of 5 was observed. The relative standard deviation at baseline was 19%. The observed change was 0.214084 times the standard deviation.

A common rule of thumb considers a change greater than twice the baseline standard deviation on two separate pre-post experiments may be considered significant. This occurrence would have only a 5% likelihood of resulting from random fluctuation (a p-value < 0.05).

T-Test Details
Observed t-value: 0.695
Critical t-value: 1.755

Since t = 0.69 < 1.75, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Biological Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between predictor and outcome is critical for interpreting observational findings. This is where human judgment excels beyond statistical analysis.

Community feedback on the biological plausibility of this relationship is still being collected. Consider the known mechanisms by which Meal might influence Attentiveness.

Bradford Hill Criteria Assessment

The Bradford Hill criteria provide a framework for assessing causality in observational studies. Our methodology operationalizes six of the nine criteria through the Predictor Impact Score (PIS):

Criterion How Addressed Metric
Strength Effect size magnitude Percent change from baseline (Δ%), z-score
Consistency Cross-participant replication Number of users (N), number of pairs (n)
Temporality Predictor precedes outcome Temporality factor (φ), onset delay (δ > 0)
Biological Gradient Dose-response relationship Gradient coefficient (φgradient)
Plausibility Biological mechanism assessment Community votes on mechanism plausibility
Specificity Category appropriateness Interest factor (finterest)

Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

The PIS integrates multiple Bradford Hill criteria into a composite metric quantifying how reliably a predictor affects an outcome. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence:

Population-Level PIS:

$$\text{PIS}_{\text{agg}} = |r_{\text{forward}}| \cdot w \cdot \phi_{\text{users}} \cdot \phi_{\text{pairs}} \cdot \phi_{\text{change}} \cdot \phi_{\text{gradient}}$$

Where φ-factors are saturation functions approaching 1 as evidence accumulates:

  • φusers = 1 - e-N/10 (user saturation)
  • φpairs = 1 - e-n/nsig (pair saturation)
  • φchange = 1 - e-Δspread/Δsig (effect spread saturation)
  • w = weighted average of plausibility votes

Temporality Assessment

We assess evidence for correct causal direction using the temporality factor:

$$\phi_{\text{temporal}} = \frac{|r_{\text{forward}}|}{|r_{\text{forward}}| + |r_{\text{reverse}}|}$$

Values approaching 1 indicate the predictor precedes the outcome (supporting causation); values near 0.5 suggest ambiguous directionality; values near 0 suggest reverse causation or confounding by indication.

Limitations

As with any observational study, correlation does not prove causation. Key limitations include:

  • Unmeasured confounders: Variables not tracked may influence results
  • Self-selection bias: Health trackers may differ from the general population
  • Measurement error: Self-reported data may contain recall bias
  • Confounding by indication: Sicker individuals may use more treatments

However, within-subject comparison and temporal precedence analysis partially mitigate these limitations. If the relationship is merely coincidental, as participants independently modify their Meal values, the observed strength will decline over time. Spurious correlations naturally dissipate as more data is collected.

Future Directions

Future research should examine:

  • Subgroup analyses to identify individual differences in response
  • Potential confounders and mediators of the observed relationship
  • Optimal dosing and timing for Meal
  • Confirmation through prospective or randomized designs
  • Biological mechanisms underlying the observed effects

Conclusion

📊 Preliminary Findings: With 2 participants, these results are based on limited data. Effect sizes and confidence will improve as more participants contribute data. Consider these findings directional rather than definitive.

Above-average Meal was associated with a 3.5% improvement in Attentiveness—a minimal effect. The Predictor Impact Score of 0.04 indicates this relationship is requiring additional data before conclusions.

Bottom Line: Based on a PIS of 0.04 and a 3.5% effect size, this relationship currently lacks sufficient evidence. Continue monitoring as more data becomes available. Note: These conclusions may strengthen or change direction as more data is collected.

These findings contribute to our understanding of how Meal may influence Attentiveness in real-world conditions. While preliminary, these results may inform future research directions. As more participants contribute data, the reliability and precision of these findings will improve substantially.

Help End Unnecessary Suffering

Current clinical trials are 82x more expensive than necessary and take 17 years to bring treatments to market. Pragmatic trials integrated into standard healthcare could reduce costs from $41,000 to $500 per participant and compress timelines to just 2 years. Learn how redirecting just 1% of global military spending could accelerate cures for the 2 billion people suffering from treatable diseases.

Make Suffering Optional

Methods

Study Design

This study is based on data donated by 2 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 2 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

This within-subject design is powerful because it controls for all stable individual characteristics (genetics, baseline health status, socioeconomic factors) that might otherwise confound the relationship between variables.

Data Analysis

Temporal Assumptions

The analysis incorporates temporal assumptions about the relationship between variables:

  • Onset Delay: It was assumed that 30 minutes would pass before a change in Meal would produce an observable change in Attentiveness.
  • Duration of Action: It was assumed that Meal could produce an observable change in Attentiveness for as much as 14 days after the stimulus event.

Statistical Methods

For each participant, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between Meal values and subsequent Attentiveness values. Individual correlations were then aggregated using Fisher's z-transformation to produce a population-level estimate:

Individual Correlation:

$$r_i = \frac{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)}{\sqrt{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)^2 \sum(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)^2}}$$

Fisher's Z-Transformation:

$$z_i = \frac{1}{2} \ln\left(\frac{1 + r_i}{1 - r_i}\right)$$

Aggregated Correlation:

$$\bar{r} = \tanh(\bar{z}) \quad \text{where} \quad \bar{z} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_i$$

Effect Size Calculation

Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline. For each participant, we compare the outcome following above-average predictor values to the overall baseline outcome:

$$\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}} = \frac{\bar{O}_{\text{follow-up}} - \bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}}{\bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}} \times 100$$

Effect Magnitude (Z-Score)

To assess effect magnitude relative to natural variability, we calculate the z-score:

$$z = \frac{|\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}}|}{\text{RSD}_{\text{baseline}}}$$

where RSDbaseline is the relative standard deviation of outcome during baseline period

A z-score > 2 indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05), meaning the observed change exceeds typical baseline fluctuation and is unlikely due to random variation.

Statistical Significance

Correlation significance is assessed using a two-tailed t-test:

$$t = \frac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}$$

We reject the null hypothesis (ρ = 0) at α = 0.05 when |t| exceeds the critical value, providing statistical evidence that the observed relationship is not due to chance.

Data Sources

Meal data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Attentiveness data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Data Quality

Data quality measures were applied to ensure reliable results:

  • Minimum Data Requirement: Only participants with sufficient paired observations were included in the analysis.
  • Outlier Handling: Extreme values were winsorized to reduce the influence of measurement errors.
  • Missing Data: Days with missing values were handled using appropriate filling strategies based on the variable type.
  • Test User Exclusion: Test accounts and invalid users were excluded from all analyses.

Principal Investigator

Program & Methods

Mike P. Sinn
Sinn, M. P.

Designed and implemented data collection, aggregation, causal inference pipeline, and automated study generation framework. Developed the Predictor Impact Score methodology operationalizing Bradford Hill criteria for ranking causal relationships in observational data. When he tells people this at parties, they usually say they have to go check on their car.

Individual study outputs are automated, reproducible, and open to external audit. (Which I would seriously recommend.)

Contact

Cite This Study

APA Format
Sinn, M. P. (2026). Causal Analysis: Does Meal Affect Attentiveness?. The Journal of Citizen Science. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5863931-effect-1267-population-study
BibTeX 
@misc{sinn_cause_5863931_effect_1267_population_study_2026,
  author = {Sinn, Mike P.},
  title = {Causal Analysis: Does Meal Affect Attentiveness?},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {The Journal of Citizen Science},
  url = {https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5863931-effect-1267-population-study},
  note = {Accessed: January 9, 2026}
}
Chicago/Turabian
Sinn, Mike P. "Causal Analysis: Does Meal Affect Attentiveness?." The Journal of Citizen Science. Accessed January 9, 2026. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5863931-effect-1267-population-study.
Harvard
Sinn, M.P., 2026. Causal Analysis: Does Meal Affect Attentiveness?. [Aggregated N-of-1 Study] The Journal of Citizen Science. Available at: https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-5863931-effect-1267-population-study [Accessed January 9, 2026].

Study Type: Aggregated N-of-1 Observational Mega-Study
Evidence Level: Level II (Real-World Evidence)
Methodology: Bradford Hill Criteria with Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

References

This framework was originally developed in 2013 based on the Bradford Hill criteria. Subsequent literature has independently validated similar approaches to causal inference from observational data:

  1. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295-300. [Bradford Hill criteria]
  2. Lillie, E.O., et al. (2011). The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized Medicine, 8(2), 161-173. [N-of-1 methodology]
  3. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . Cambridge University Press. [Causal inference]
  4. Hernán, M.A., & Robins, J.M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC. [Free textbook]
  5. FDA (2018). Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program . U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Regulatory context]
  6. Duan, N., et al. (2013). Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), S21-S28.
  7. Platt, R., et al. (2018). The FDA Sentinel Initiative—an evolving national resource . New England Journal of Medicine, 379(22), 2091-2093.

This information is for research and educational purposes only, not medical advice. Consult a healthcare provider before making health decisions. Terms of Service

LinkedIn Reddit