Driving habits and behaviors of patients with brain tumors: a self-report, cognitive and driving simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to determine driving habits and behaviors of patients with brain tumors in order to better inform discussions around driving safety in this population. Eight-four patients with brain tumors participated in a survey on their driving behaviors since their diagnosis. Thirteen of these patients and thirteen sex- and age-matched healthy controls participated in cognitive testing and several driving simulation scenarios in order to objectively assess driving performance. Survey responses demonstrated that patients with brain tumors engage in a variety of driving scenarios with little subjectve difficulty. On the driving simulation tasks, patients and healthy controls performed similarly except that patients had more speed exceedances (U = 41, p < 0.05) and a greater variability in speed (U = 57, p < 0.05). Performance on the selective attention component of the UFOV was significantly associated with greater total errors in the Bus Following task for patients with brain tumors compared to healthy controls (rs = 0.722, p < 0.05, CI [0.080, 0.957]). Better comprehensive driving assessments are needed to identify patients with driving behaviors that put themselves and others at risk on the road.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".