Visual Field Impairment and Driver Fitness: A 1-Year Review of Crashes and Traffic Violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Occupational therapists frequently assess the fitness to drive of people with visual field impairment, but the relationship between these assessments and driving performance over time is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine traffic violation and crash incidence over a 1-yr period for drivers with visual field impairment. DESIGN: Retrospective review of medical and driving records. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N = 445) were ages 26-74 yr with binocular, corrected visual acuity of ≥20/50. Goldmann visual field tests were reviewed to stratify participants on the basis of visual field impairment and whether impairments exceeded licensing standards. OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Traffic records were reviewed to determine group-specific traffic violations and crash incidence during the year after the visual field test. RESULTS: Of 445 participants, 292 held a valid driver's license during the designated period. Participants not meeting the licensing standards were less likely to become licensed than participants who met the standards. The results indicate that drivers with visual field impairment did not have a higher probability of crashes or violations than drivers without visual field impairment. CONCLUSION: Drivers with visual field impairment who retained a driver's license did not have an increased probability of crashes in the following year. A larger, prospective, mixed methods study of long-term driving behaviors among people with visual field impairment is recommended. WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS: This study provides preliminary data on the 1-yr incidence of traffic violations and crashes among people with visual field impairment.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".