MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578003141 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.tp123

Abstract T P123: Impairment in Cognitively Demanding Driving Situations after Acute Mild Ischemic Stroke

2015· article· en· W1578003141 on OpenAlexaff
Megan A. Hird, K Veselý, Leah E. Christie, Melissa A. Alves, Jitphapa Pongmoragot, Gustavo Saposnik, Tom A. Schweizer

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Driving simulatorIschemic strokeAcute strokePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyCardiologyInternal medicineIschemiaSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Guidelines established by prominent governing bodies recommend that patients should wait a minimum of one month before resuming driving after stroke; however, these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, many patients report resuming driving within the one-month period post-stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate the driving performance of mild stroke patients within the acute phase of injury. It was hypothesized that patients with acute stroke would exhibit more errors in general (e.g. collisions, speed exceedances, centre line crossings) and during cognitively demanding aspects of driving (i.e. left turns with traffic), but not routine aspects of driving (i.e. straight driving and right turns). Methods: The current study used driving simulator technology (STISIM) to compare the driving performance of 10 patients with acute mild ischemic stroke (NIHSS<7, within 7 days post-stroke) to that of 10 healthy, age- and education-matched controls. Patients and controls completed several driving tasks that increased in complexity, from routine right and left turns to cognitively demanding left turns with traffic, where most accidents occur, and a bus following task, which requires a high degree of sustained attention. Results: On average, stroke patients committed over twice as many errors as controls (12.4 vs 6.0, p< 0.01). Although there was no difference between patients and controls in the number of errors committed during routine right and left turns, patients committed more errors during left turns with traffic (2.4 vs 1.3, p<0.05) and a bus following task (8.2 vs 2.1, p<0.05). Conclusions: Patients with acute mild ischemic stroke may be able to maintain driving performance during basic tasks (e.g. straight driving, right turns) and deficits may become apparent during cognitively complex tasks (e.g. left turns with traffic and bus following). The results highlight the importance of healthcare professionals providing driving advice to their patients post-stroke, particularly in the acute phase of injury. Future longitudinal research is required to determine when patients with mild stroke can safely resume driving.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207