Fitness-to-drive Disagreements in Individuals With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: We sought to investigate the agreement between medical and practical fitness-to-drive recommendations in active drivers with dementia. Design and Methods: In this retrospective study, 68 patients underwent medical, visual, and road tests at an official center of the Belgian Road Safety Institute. Physicians provided medical fitness-to-drive recommendations using 1 of 3 categories (favorable, reserved, or unfavorable). On-road assessors used the same 3 categories to make practical fitness-to-drive recommendations. Agreement between the medical and practical fitness-to-drive recommendations was calculated using the percentage of agreement (p0) and weighted kappa (kw). Results: Low agreement was found between physicians and on-road assessors regarding their fitness-to-drive recommendations (p0 = 43%, kw = 0.11, p = .20). Compared with the on-road assessors, the physicians overestimated the fitness to drive of 24 (35%) patients and underestimated the fitness to drive of 15 (22%) patients. Patients who incurred more traffic violations were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated by the physician (p = .03). Implications: This study showed disagreements between the fitness-to-drive recommendations made by the physicians and the on-road assessors in more than half of drivers with dementia. Efforts need to be made to improve the communication between physicians and on-road assessors for joint decision making of fitness to drive in dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".