MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417035702 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2025.2587847

Examining the association between clinical tests and simulated driving performance in long-haul truck drivers

2025· article· en· W4417035702 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mackenzie L. McKeown, Michael K. Lemke, Alexander M. Crizzle

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlOccupational safety and healthAssociation (psychology)CognitionInjury preventionSuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to profile LHTD health, clinical test scores, and simulated driving performance; examine associations between clinical test scores and simulated driving errors in LHTD; and examine differences between LHTD simulated driving performance in different weather, lighting, and traffic conditions. METHODS: LHTD were recruited from various provincial and federal trucking associations and trucking companies across Canada. A sample of 36 LHTD completed a demographic questionnaire, objective health measures, a battery of cognitive, visual, and motor tests, and two simulated drives with different environmental conditions. RESULTS: The mean age of the sample was 47.9 ± 12.3 years (range 22-69); 94.4% were men. When operating in nighttime, rural, and winter conditions, LHTD made significantly more lane maintenance and speed regulation errors compared to the daytime, urban, and summer drive. In contrast, LHTD made significantly more signaling errors during the daytime urban drive compared to the nighttime, winter drive. Together these findings show that LHTD face significant challenges in a variety of driving environments. When combining both simulated drives, our findings show that poorer TMTA scores were significantly associated with more speed regulation (i.e., over-speeding and hard braking) and total driving errors. Additionally, poorer TMTB and UFOV-2 scores were significantly associated with more adjustment to stimuli, speed regulation, and total driving errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the critical role of visual search, processing speed, and divided attention on driving performance, and the significant impact of environmental factors (e.g., lighting; weather; traffic) on the occurrence of specific driving errors and crashes. The integration of cognitive assessments (e.g., UFOV; TMTB) should be considered for inclusion as part of the mandatory medical examinations to ensure LHTD can safely operate their commercial motor vehicle.

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)0.003
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207