MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406380832 · doi:10.1111/jsr.14455

Poorer objective but not subjective driving performance in drivers vulnerable to sleep loss effects during extended wake

2025· article· en· W4406380832 on OpenAlexaff
Katrina Nguyen, Claire Dunbar, A Guyett, Kelsey Bickley, Duc Phuc Nguyen, Amy C. Reynolds, Peter Catcheside, Hannah Scott, Robert Adams, Leon Lack, Jennifer M. Cori, Mark E. Howard, Clare Anderson, David Stevens, Nicole Lovato, Andrew Vakulin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsNeuroRx Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep deprivationWakefulnessPsychologyEpworth Sleepiness ScaleDriving simulatorCrashPoison controlAudiologySomnolenceMedicinePolysomnographySimulationPsychiatryMedical emergencyCognitionElectroencephalographyComputer scienceAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleepiness-related errors are a leading cause of driving accidents, requiring drivers to effectively monitor sleepiness levels. However, there are inter-individual differences in driving performance after sleep loss, with some showing poor driving performance while others show minimal impairment. This research explored if there are differences in self-reported sleepiness and driving performance in healthy drivers who exhibited vulnerability or resistance to objective driving impairment following extended wakefulness. Thirty-two adults (female = 18, mean age = 33.0 ± 14.6 years) completed five × 60-min simulated drives across 29-hr of extended wakefulness. Subjective sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) and subjective driving performance ratings (nine-point Likert scale) were assessed at 10-min intervals while driving. Cluster analysis using simulator steering deviation and crash data categorised participants as vulnerable (n = 16) or resistant (n = 16) to driving impairments following extended wakefulness. No differences in self-ratings between the vulnerable and resistant groups were observed except during the last drive (25 hr awake), where the vulnerable group reported higher sleepiness (p = 0.008) and worse driving performance (p = 0.001) than the resistant group. For each 1-point increase on the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale and subjective driving scales, the vulnerable group showed about threefold greater steering impairment relative to resistant drivers. Although self-reported sleepiness and driving performance were correlated with objective driving performance, vulnerable drivers reported similar sleepiness and driving performance as resistant drivers. Thus, self-reported sleepiness and driving performance are not reliably sensitive to sleep loss effects on objective driving performance, which may impact the vulnerable driver's decisions to continue driving and delay engagement in countermeasures to reduce crash risk (e.g. napping), warranting 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sleep ResearchSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207