Candrive—Development of a Risk Stratification Tool for Older Drivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessing an older adult's fitness-to-drive is an important part of clinical decision making. However, most existing risk prediction tools only have a dichotomous design, which does not account for subtle differences in risk status for patients with complex medical conditions or changes over time. Our objective was to develop an older driver risk stratification tool (RST) to screen for medical fitness-to-drive in older adults. METHODS: Participants were active drivers aged 70 and older from 7 sites across 4 Canadian provinces. They underwent in-person assessments every 4 months with an annual comprehensive assessment. Participant vehicles were instrumented to provide vehicle and passive Global Positioning System (GPS) data. The primary outcome measure was police-reported, expert-validated, at-fault collision adjusted per annual kilometers driven. Predictor variables included physical, cognitive, and health assessment measures. RESULTS: A total of 928 older drivers were recruited for this study beginning in 2009. The average age at enrollment was 76.2 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.8) with 62.1% male participants. The mean duration for participation was 4.9 (SD = 1.6) years. The derived Candrive RST included 4 predictors. Out of 4 483 person-years of driving, 74.8% fell within the lowest risk category. Only 2.9% of person-years were in the highest risk category where the relative risk for at-fault collisions was 5.26 (95% confidence interval = 2.81-9.84) compared to the lowest risk group. CONCLUSIONS: For older drivers whose medical conditions create uncertainty regarding their fitness-to-drive, the Candrive RST may assist primary health care providers when initiating a conversation about driving and to guide further 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".