Indicators of Simulated Driving Skills in Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have an increased risk for committing traffic violations, and they are four times more likely than neurotypical peers to be crash involved, making them a potentially high risk group for driving. We used a two-group design to measure differences in demographics, clinical off-road tests, and fitness to drive abilities in a driving simulator with nine adolescents with ADHD (mean age = 15.00, SD ± 1.00) compared to 22 healthy controls (HC) (mean age = 14.32, SD ±..716), as evaluated by an Occupational Therapist Certified Driving Rehabilitation Specialist (OT-CDRS). Despite few demographic differences, the adolescents with ADHD performed worse than the HC on tests of right visual acuity (F = 5.92, p = .036), right peripheral field (F = 6.85, p = .019), selective attention (U = 53.00, p = .046), and motor coordination (U = 53.00, p = .046). The ADHD group made more visual scanning (U = 52.50, p = .041), speed regulation (U = 28.00, p = .001), and total driving errors (U = 32.50, p = .003) on the simulator. Adolescents with ADHD performed worse on tests measuring visual, cognitive, motor, and pre-driving skills, and on a driving simulator. They may require the services of an OT-CDRS to determine their fitness to drive abilities prior to referring them for driver’s education.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".