Tamiko Nelson appeals the judgment of the district court 1 affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, after her hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On appeal, Nelson argues that the ALJ did not properly assess the combination of her impairments, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was improper. Following careful review, we conclude that the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and that Nelson’s arguments do not establish a basis for remand or warrant reversal. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough evidence that a reasonable mind would find adequate to support the Commissioner’s decision.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.