MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309859151 · doi:10.1002/alz.12852

Adverse driving behaviors increase over time as a function of preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarkers

2022· article· en· W4309859151 on OpenAlexaff
Jason M. Doherty, Samantha Murphy, Sayeh Bayat, Julie K. Wisch, Alexis Walker, Suzanne E. Schindler, Beau M. Ances, John C. Morris, Ganesh M. Babulal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthBrightFocus Foundation
KeywordsAdverse effectMedicineDiseaseCognitionAmyloid betaBiomarkerOncologyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the relationship between preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers and adverse driving behaviors in a longitudinal analysis of naturalistic driving data. METHODS: Naturalistic driving data collected using in-vehicle dataloggers from 137 community-dwelling older adults (65+) were used to model driving behavior over time. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers were used to identify individuals with preclinical AD. Additionally, hippocampal volume and cognitive biomarkers for AD were investigated in exploratory analyses. RESULTS: ) ratio was associated with an increase in adverse driving behaviors over time compared to ratios in the normal/lower range. DISCUSSION: Preclinical AD is associated with increased adverse driving behavior over time that cannot be explained by cognitive changes. Driving behavior as a functional, neurobehavioral marker may serve as an early detection for decline in preclinical AD. Screening may also help prolong safe driving as older drivers age.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207