MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200510701 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.3176

An International Review of Motor Vehicle Collision Risk with Medical Conditions in Older Adults

2021· article· en· W4200510701 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Rapoport, Joanne M. Wood, Jamie Dow, Desmond O’Neill, Judith Charlton, Sjannie Koppel

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQuebec Automobile Insurance CorporationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Relative riskVisual acuityMacular degenerationEpilepsyHearing lossAudiologyPsychiatryPediatricsInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective was to examine the impact of seven categories of medical illness on risk of Motor Vehicle Collisions (MVC) in older adults. In late 2019, a systematic review of the MVC risk associated with alcohol use disorders, psychiatric disorders, epilepsy, diabetes, hearing loss, vision disorders and sleep disorders was conducted. A total of 64,720 titles were screened, and 138 articles were included. Of these, only thirteen pertained to older adults, only six showed increased MVC risk in at least one condition, and only seven were rated of “Good” quality. Hearing impairment was associated with MVC only if associated with visual acuity or contrast sensitivity impairments (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.3 and RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.62-3.57, respectively). A high depression score was associated with increased MVC (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) in one study, but a similar relationship was not found in two other studies. Glaucoma increased at-fault MVC risk (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20-2.28) in one study, but no relationship was found in another. Visual field loss increased MVC risk in three of four studies (RR or HR ranging from 1.31 to 2.32). One negative study each were identified for alcohol use disorders, age-related macular degeneration, any eye disease, or any psychiatric disorder, and four negative studies were identified for reduced visual acuity. No studies of older adults were found for epilepsy or sleep disorders. Interpretation of MVC risk in older drivers with medical illness is rendered challenging by the paucity and quality of studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207