R2DRV: study protocol for longitudinal assessment of driving after mild TBI in young drivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and traffic-related injuries are two major public health problems disproportionately affecting young people. Young drivers, whose driving skills are still developing, are particularly vulnerable to impaired driving due to brain injuries. Despite this, there is a paucity of research on how mTBI impacts driving and when it is safe to return to drive after an mTBI. This paper describes the protocol of the study, R2DRV, Longitudinal Assessment of Driving After Mild TBI in Young Drivers, which examines the trajectory of simulated driving performance and self-reported driving behaviors from acutely post-injury to symptom resolution among young drivers with mTBI compared to matched healthy drivers. Additionally, this study investigates the associations of acute post-injury neurocognitive function and cognitive load with driving among young drivers with and without mTBI. METHODS: A total of 200 young drivers (ages 16 to 24) are enrolled from two study sites, including 100 (50 per site) with a physician-confirmed isolated mTBI, along with 100 (50 per site) healthy drivers without a history of TBI matched 1:1 for age, sex, driving experience, and athlete status. The study assesses primary driving outcomes using two approaches: (1) high-fidelity driving simulators to evaluate driving performance across four experimental study conditions at multiple time points (within 96 h of injury and weekly until symptom resolution or 8 weeks post-injury); (2) daily self-report surveys on real-world driving behaviors completed by all participants. DISCUSSION: This study will fill critical knowledge gaps by longitudinally assessing driving performance and behaviors in young drivers with mTBI, as compared to matched healthy drivers, from acutely post-injury to symptom resolution. The research strategy enables evaluating how increased cognitive load may exacerbate the effects of mTBI on driving, and how post-mTBI neurocognitive deficits may impact the driving ability of young drivers. Findings will be shared through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and media outreach to care providers and the public.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.016 |
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".