Driving predictors in a cohort of cognitively impaired Mexican American and non‐Hispanic White individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias may lose the ability to drive safely as their disease progresses. Little is known about driving prevalence in older Latinx and non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals. We investigated the prevalence of driving status among individuals with cognitive impairment in a population-based cohort. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of the cohort BASIC-Cognitive study in a community of Mexican American (MA) and NHW individuals in South Texas. Participants scored ≤25 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), indicating a likelihood of cognitive impairment. Current driving status was assessed by the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol informant interview. Logistic regression was used to assess driving versus non-driving adjusted for pre-specified covariates. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare NHW and MA differences in driving outcomes from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) questions for evaluating driving risk in dementia. RESULTS: There were 635 participants, 77.0 mean age, 62.4% women, and 17.3 mean MoCA. Of these, 360 (61.4%) were current drivers with 250 of 411 (60.8%) MA participants driving, and 121 of 190 (63.70%) NHW participants driving (p = 0.50). In fully adjusted models age, sex, cognitive impairment, language preference, and Activities of Daily Living scores were significant predictors for the likelihood of driving (p < 0.0001). Severity of cognitive impairment was inversely associated with odds of driving, but this relationship was not found in those preferring Spanish language for interviews. Around one-third of all caregivers had concerns about their care-recipient driving. There were no significant differences in MA and NHW driving habits and outcomes from the AAN questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants with cognitive impairment were currently driving. This is a cause for concern for many caregivers. There were no significant ethnic driving differences. Associations with current driving in cognitively impaired persons require further research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".