Evidence Based Review of Fitness-to-Drive and Return-to-Driving Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct an evidence-based review to determine predictors of fitness to drive and return to driving in persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Relevant databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS) were searched for primary articles published before June 2016 using MeSH search terms. Using the American Academy of Neurology’s classification criteria, 24 articles were included after reviewing 1998 articles. Studies were rated by class (I–IV), with I being the highest level of evidence. Articles were classified according to TBI severity, as well as types of assessments (on-road, simulator and surveys). There were no Class I studies. Based on Class II studies, only Post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) duration was found to be probably predictive of on-road driving performance. There is limited evidence concerning predictors of return to driving. The findings suggest further evidence is needed to identify predictors of on-road driving performance in persons with TBI. Class I studies reporting Level A recommendations for definitive predictors of driving performance in drivers with TBI are needed by policy makers and clinicians to develop evidence-based guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it