Systematic Review of the Optimal Frequency of Follow-up in Persons With Mild Dementia Who Continue to Drive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness-to-drive guidelines commonly indicate that persons with mild dementia may be safe to drive but that periodic reevaluation is required. This paper presents the findings of a systematic review of primary evidence regarding the optimal timing of follow-up in persons with mild dementia who continue to drive. A search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo, AARP Ageline, and Sociofile from 1984 to 2005 was performed. No published studies focus primarily on the timing of follow-up of drivers with mild dementia. Three studies present longitudinal data that the authors reference when recommending periodicity of follow-up. This study identifies a concerning research gap in the field of dementia and driving. To provide better evidence to guide recommendations for periodicity of follow-up, 3 recommendations are proposed: (1) that prospective cohort driving research be undertaken to follow patients with mild dementia who continue to drive, (2) that data from such longitudinal research be presented as survival analyses, and (3) that existing research on the progression rates of Alzheimer disease be employed as a default until the first 2 recommendations are realized.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".