The Effects of Donepezil on Computer-Simulated Driving Ability Among Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present pilot study was to examine the effect of donepezil on simulated driving among healthy older adults. Twenty participants with a mean age of 72 years were randomized to take 5 mg of donepezil or placebo for 2 weeks. All participants were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks later on measures of attention, global cognition, and simulated driving on the York driving simulator. Driving measures included speed deviation, deviation of road position, reaction time to wind gusts, and collisions. Groups were compared using analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline values. There were no differences between the groups on attentional measures, number of collisions, or composite simulator measures. The placebo group fared approximately 0.5 second better in reaction time to wind gusts and showed a nonsignificant tendency toward less deviation of road position, compared with the donepezil group. This analysis does not support the use of donepezil to extend the period of safe driving among older adults, but further study is needed regarding its role among patients with cognitive disorders.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".