MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301417871 · doi:10.1177/2150131910369156

The Introduction of a New Screening Tool for the Identification of Cognitively Impaired Medically At-Risk Drivers

2010· article· en· W2301417871 on OpenAlexaff
Bonnie Dobbs, Donald Schopflocher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Primary Care & Community Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaCohortCognitive impairmentCognitionCohort studyIndeterminateCognitive testPsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The number of drivers with a cognitive impairment due to dementia or other age-associated pathologies will increase significantly over the next 3 decades. Physicians are well placed to identify medically at-risk drivers, but are hampered by the lack of a valid, easy to administer screening tool. This research develops and validates a brief screening tool for use in the primary care setting to identify drivers with cognitive impairment with or without dementia. Initial Study Participants: A cohort of 146 consecutive referrals from community-based family physicians, diagnosed with an undifferentiated cognitive impairment or dementia, as well as 35 community dwelling healthy controls. Validation Study: A cohort of 192 consecutive referrals carrying the same diagnosis as above and 52 community dwelling healthy controls. Criterion Measure: Pass/fail on an On-Road evaluation. Predictor Measures: Subtests of the DemTect, a screening test for cognitive impairment or dementia developed by Kalbe and colleagues.(1) Initial Study: Three of the DemTect measures predicted On-Road outcomes (R(2) = .262). Regression results were used to develop a simple scoring algorithm, with cut-points then derived by identifying those most at risk for failing and passing the On-Road assessment, and those needing a driving assessment for determination of driving competency. 89 individuals scored in the indeterminate range, with 49 and 43 predicted to fail and pass, respectively-86% and 84% of those predicted to fail and pass did subsequently fail and pass. Validation Study: 123 individuals scored in the indeterminate range, with 66 and 55 predicted to fail and pass, respectively-80% and 87% of those predicted to fail and pass did subsequently fail and pass. CONCLUSIONS: The SIMARD A Modification of the DemTect ( S creen for the I dentification of cognitively impaired M edically A t- R isk D rivers) is a brief paper and pencil screening tool with a high degree of accuracy that can be used for immediate decisions in the clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Primary Care & Community HealthSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207