Graduated driver licensing and motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers: an exploratory age-stratified meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) has been implemented in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA and Israel. We conducted an exploratory summary of available data to estimate whether GDL effects varied with age. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and other sources from 1991-2011. GDL evaluation studies with crashes resulting in injuries or deaths were eligible. They had to provide age-specific incidence rate ratios with CI or information for calculating these quantities. We included studies from individual states or provinces, but excluded national studies. We examined rates based on person-years, not license-years. RESULTS: Of 1397 papers, 144 were screened by abstract and 47 were reviewed. Twelve studies from 11 US states and one Canadian province were selected for meta-analysis for age 16, eight were selected for age 17, and four for age 18. Adjusted rate ratios were pooled using random effects models. The pooled adjusted rate ratios for the association of GDL presence with crash rates was 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84) for age 16 years, 0.94 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.96) for 17 and 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.04) for 18. The difference between these three rate ratios was statistically significant: p<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: GDL policies were associated with a 22% reduction in crash rates among 16-year-old drivers, but only a 6% reduction for 17-year-old drivers. GDL showed no association with crashes among 18-year-old drivers. Because we had few studies to summarise, particularly for older adolescents, our findings should be considered exploratory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".