MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292771346 · doi:10.1177/1539449215601118

Clinical Assessments as Predictors of Primary On-Road Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease

2015· article· en· W2292771346 on OpenAlexafffund
Sherrilene Classen, Jeffrey D. Holmes, Liliana Alvarez, Katherine Loew, Ashley Mulvagh, Kayla Rienas, Victoria Walton, Wenqing He

Bibliographic record

VenueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of FloridaParkinson CanadaNational Parkinson Foundation
KeywordsParkinson's diseasePrimary (astronomy)DiseaseMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that affects fitness to drive. Research that has examined clinical predictors of fitness to drive in PD, using the on-road assessment as the gold standard, has generally used a dichotomous pass/fail decision. However, on-road assessments may also result in one of two additional outcomes (pass with recommendations, or fail-remediable). Individuals within these subgroups may benefit from interventions to improve their fitness to drive abilities. This study investigated clinical predictors that could be indicative of the pass, pass with recommendations, or fail-remediable categories for drivers with PD (N = 99). Trails B, Left Finger to Nose Test, and contrast sensitivity measures were identified as significant predictors for the pass, and pass with recommendations subgroups. No significant predictors were identified for the fail-remediable subgroup. Results from this study provide a foundation for clinicians to identify drivers who can benefit from recommendations to preserve their driving abilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of ResearchSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207