Van der Veer Institute for Parkinson's and Brain Research, 66 Stewart Street, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1759-68. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.017. Epub 2010 May 26.
This study compared the ability of binary logistic regression (BLR) and non-linear causal resource analysis (NCRA) to utilize a range of cognitive, sensory-motor, personality and demographic measures to predict driving ability in a sample of cognitively healthy older drivers. Participants were sixty drivers aged 70 and above (mean=76.7 years, 50% men) with no diagnosed neurological disorder. Test data was used to build classification models for a Pass or Fail score on an on-road driving assessment. The generalizability of the models was estimated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Sixteen participants (27%) received an on-road Fail score. Area under the ROC curve values were .76 for BLR and .88 for NCRA (no significant difference, z=1.488, p=.137). The ROC curve was used to select three different cut-points for each model and to compare classification. At the cut-point corresponding to the maximum average of sensitivity and specificity, the BLR model had a sensitivity of 68.8% and specificity of 75.0% while NCRA had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 95.5%. However, leave-one-out cross-validation reduced sensitivity in both models and particularly reduced specificity for NCRA. Neither model is accurate enough to be relied on solely for determination of driving ability. The lowered accuracy of the models following leave-one-out cross-validation highlights the importance of investigating models beyond classification alone in order to determine a model's ability to generalize to new cases.
本研究比较了二元逻辑回归(BLR)和非线性因果资源分析(NCRA)的能力,以利用一系列认知、感觉运动、人格和人口统计学指标来预测认知健康的老年驾驶员样本的驾驶能力。参与者为 60 名年龄在 70 岁及以上的驾驶员(平均年龄为 76.7 岁,50%为男性),没有诊断出神经障碍。测试数据用于为道路驾驶评估的通过或失败分数构建分类模型。使用留一法交叉验证来估计模型的泛化能力。16 名参与者(27%)在道路测试中失败。BLR 的 ROC 曲线下面积值为.76,NCRA 为.88(无显著差异,z=1.488,p=.137)。ROC 曲线用于为每个模型选择三个不同的切点,并进行分类比较。在对应于最大平均敏感性和特异性的切点处,BLR 模型的敏感性为 68.8%,特异性为 75.0%,而 NCRA 的敏感性为 75.0%,特异性为 95.5%。然而,留一法交叉验证降低了两个模型的敏感性,特别是降低了 NCRA 的特异性。这两种模型都不够准确,不能单独依赖于驾驶能力的确定。留一法交叉验证后模型的准确性降低,突出了仅进行分类研究之外,为了确定模型对新案例的概括能力,对模型进行调查的重要性。