MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117301260 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_106191

Identifying Mature Driver Risk from Naturalistic Driving

2025· article· en· W7117301260 on OpenAlexaffabout
Malak Saif El Nasr, Phil Masson, Bruce Wallace, Kathleen Van Benthem, Chris M. Herdman, Jocelyn Keillor, Rafik Goubran, Frank Knoefel, Shawn Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of OttawaBruyèreCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Risk assessmentRisk perceptionHuman factors and ergonomicsDangerous drivingPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Driving is essential for independence while relying on physical and cognitive abilities. Many mature drivers struggle with decisions to adjust or stop driving. Physicians in Ontario, Canada are required to report patients they believe are no longer safe to drive. Understanding driving risk is challenging, with limited tools to analyze individualized driving. This work uses a database of mature driver in-car data to investigate behaviors predictive of increased risk. The Candrive Risk Stratification tool (RST) predicts driving collision risk based on clinical measures. This project explores if naturalistic driving parameters correlate to the RST. This work provides knowledge to assist drivers in monitoring enabling proactive decisions about driving behaviour and driving retirement. METHOD: Candrive dataset analysis had ethics approval from the Bruyère Health and Carleton Research Ethics boards. This dataset includes up to seven years of in-car sensor and annual health assessments for 250 drivers >70 years of age in Ottawa. This work focuses on telematics, including speed-related measures, lateral/longitudinal acceleration, and jerk (change in acceleration), to determine if they are predictive of driving risk as indicated by RST scores. Key telematics scenarios are used for left and right turns, both known to challenge mature drivers. RESULT: Results are presented in Figures 1 (Left Turns) and 2 (Right Turns) in the form of Shapley plots that provide a visualization of a given measure's predictive ability to indicate driver risk. Maximum and minimum measures of velocity show a clear indication of risk, with drivers with lowest minimum speeds having higher risk while average velocity results are inconclusive as the red (high average velocity) and blue (low) are mixed with no distinction. Low values of maximum longitudinal acceleration and minimum lateral acceleration are also related to lower risk. CONCLUSION: The work demonstrates the potential for ongoing driving assessment to provide new insights for clinicians, drivers, and families related to risk derived from actual driving. Individualized knowledge about driving risk supports proactive measures, such as retraining, to mitigate declines or to prepare for driving retirement. Data from driving provides timely knowledge to the mature driver and offers significant advantages as compared to waiting for clinical assessments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207