Katheryne Polter appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2012), we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Polter’s challenges to the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations as to physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2012) (conclusory checkbox form has little evidentiary value when it provides little or no elaboration and cites no medical evidence); Renstrom, 680 F.3d at 1064 (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control); or to the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2011) (hypothetical must capture concrete consequences of claimant’s deficiencies); cf. Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001) (rejecting contention that hypothetical was flawed because it did not specify frequency of need to alternate between sitting and *699 standing, where hypothetical addressed claimant’s need to sit and stand “at will”). The district court is affirmed.