MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2352559993 · doi:10.1177/1539449215601117

Caregivers’ Impressions Predicting Fitness to Drive in Persons With Parkinson’s

2015· article· en· W2352559993 on OpenAlexaff
Sherrilene Classen, Liliana Alvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersUniversity of FloridaNational Parkinson Foundation
KeywordsParkinson's diseasePsychologyOdds ratioDiseaseSet (abstract data type)OddsTest (biology)Association (psychology)MedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyLogistic regressionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease, increasing in incidence, with a known impact on fitness to drive. Although great progress has been made on evidence-based guidelines for assessing fitness to drive of persons with PD, a need remains for early identification of at-risk drivers in need of comprehensive assessment. This study investigated whether caregivers of drivers with PD could predict the driver's on-road outcome. We also investigated whether the predictive value of their impressions differed from that of drivers themselves, their neurologist, or from information provided by standardized measures of visual and divided attention. Caregivers' risk impressions (odds ratio [OR] = 13.76, p = .03) and Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B; OR = 0.41, p = .02) emerged as significant predictors of passing an on-road assessment. Our findings suggest that caregiver impressions, with a measure of set shifting, may be used as an efficient screen to identify drivers with PD who are potentially at risk for failing an on-road assessment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of ResearchSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207