• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用感觉运动、认知、人格和人口统计学数据来预测健康老年人驾驶能力的线性和非线性模型比较。

Comparison of a linear and a non-linear model for using sensory-motor, cognitive, personality, and demographic data to predict driving ability in healthy older adults.

机构信息

Van der Veer Institute for Parkinson's and Brain Research, 66 Stewart Street, Christchurch 8011, New Zealand.

出版信息

Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1759-68. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.017. Epub 2010 May 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.017
PMID:20728627
Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
Comparison of a linear and a non-linear model for using sensory-motor, cognitive, personality, and demographic data to predict driving ability in healthy older adults.使用感觉运动、认知、人格和人口统计学数据来预测健康老年人驾驶能力的线性和非线性模型比较。
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1759-68. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.017. Epub 2010 May 26.
2
Sensory-motor and cognitive tests predict driving ability of persons with brain disorders.感觉运动和认知测试可预测脑部疾病患者的驾驶能力。
J Neurol Sci. 2007 Sep 15;260(1-2):188-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.04.052. Epub 2007 Jun 4.
3
Do complex models increase prediction of complex behaviours? Predicting driving ability in people with brain disorders.复杂模型能否提高对复杂行为的预测?预测脑部疾病患者的驾驶能力。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Sep;64(9):1714-25. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2011.555821. Epub 2011 Jun 12.
4
Cognitive predictors of unsafe driving in older drivers: a meta-analysis.老年驾驶员不安全驾驶的认知预测因素:一项荟萃分析。
Int Psychogeriatr. 2009 Aug;21(4):637-53. doi: 10.1017/S1041610209009119. Epub 2009 May 27.
5
Predictors of driving assessment outcome in Parkinson's disease.帕金森病驾驶评估结果的预测因素。
Mov Disord. 2006 Feb;21(2):230-5. doi: 10.1002/mds.20709.
6
[Cognitive impairments among older drivers: medical examination and driving test].老年驾驶员的认知障碍:医学检查与驾驶测试
Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr. 2001 Aug;32(4):160-4.
7
Executive functions in the evaluation of accident risk of older drivers.执行功能在老年驾驶员事故风险评估中的作用
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002 Apr;24(2):221-38. doi: 10.1076/jcen.24.2.221.993.
8
Predictors of fitness to drive in people with Parkinson disease.帕金森病患者驾驶适宜性的预测因素。
Neurology. 2007 Oct 2;69(14):1434-41. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000277640.58685.fc.
9
Acceptability and concurrent validity of measures to predict older driver involvement in motor vehicle crashes: an Emergency Department pilot case-control study.预测老年驾驶员机动车碰撞事故的相关测量方法的可接受性和同时效度:一项急诊科试点病例对照研究。
Accid Anal Prev. 2007 Sep;39(5):1056-63. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2007.02.003. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
10
The 4Cs (crash history, family concerns, clinical condition, and cognitive functions): a screening tool for the evaluation of the at-risk driver.4Cs(事故史、家庭问题、临床状况和认知功能):用于评估高危驾驶员的筛查工具。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Jun;58(6):1104-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02855.x. Epub 2010 May 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Driving evaluation methods for able-bodied persons and individuals with lower extremity disabilities: a review of assessment modalities.健全人和下肢残疾个体的驾驶评估方法:评估方式综述
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015 Sep;70(9):638-47. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2015(09)08.
2
Falls risk and simulated driving performance in older adults.老年人的跌倒风险与模拟驾驶表现
J Aging Res. 2013;2013:356948. doi: 10.1155/2013/356948. Epub 2013 Feb 21.