Preliminary Results for the Automated Assessment of Driving Simulation Results for Drivers with Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging related changes and pathology affecting cognition and the ability to drive are significant issues for individuals, their families and the general population. Ensuring that unsafe drivers have their license suspended or get the additional training they need is important for the safety of the general population. On the other hand, allowing a person to continue to drive as long as they are safe is important for the social, emotional and cognitive wellbeing of the individual. This paper presents results of a preliminary study to see if an automated assessment based on trained machine learning models can correctly classify simulator drives as safe or unsafe in comparison to expert driver assessment opinion. The results show that the machine learning is able to achieve 85% accuracy in comparison to the experts for a combined group of 47 drivers that included 20 Healthy Controls, 9 diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia and 18 diagnosed with mild Dementia of Alzheimer's Type. This work shows the potential for automated driver simulation assessment, which could reduce the burden on clinicians regarding driver safety evaluation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".