Impact of cognitive impairment on driving behaviour and route choices of older drivers: a real-world driving study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Maintaining driving independence is important for older adults. However, cognitive decline, a common issue in older populations, can impair older adults’ driving abilities and overall safety on the roads. This study explores how cognitive impairment influences driving patterns and driving choices among older adults. We analyzed real-world driving patterns of 246 older adults using GPS dataloggers. Our sample included 230 cognitively normal older adults (CN; Clinical Dementia Rating $$^R$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mi>R</mml:mi> </mml:mmultiscripts> </mml:math> [CDR] = 0) and 16 older adults with incident cognitive impairment (ICI; CDR = 0.5). The CN group had an average age of 68.2 years, with 46% females and an average of 16.5 years of education, while the ICI group’s average age was 69.2 years, with 36% females and an average of 16.0 years of education. We employed spatial clustering and hashing algorithms to evaluate driving behaviours. Significant differences emerged: The ICI group used fewer distinct routes to their most common destination. These differences can be leveraged to develop driving as a digital biomarker for the early detection and continuous monitoring of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".