Observational studyNeurology2025
Association of Daily Driving Behaviors With Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults Followed Over 10 Years.
Observational study in Neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut Microbiome Changes in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease.Nutrients · 2026Review
- The Lawton and Brody a half century later: A case for contemporary revision.The Clinical neuropsychologist · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDriving integrates multiple cognitive, sensory, and motor systems and may serve as a real-world indicator of functional decline in aging. Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often experience subtle driving changes before formal dementia diagnosis, but longitudinal, real-world evidence is limited. This study examined whether naturalistic driving data can differentiate older adults with MCI from those with normal cognition (NC) over time and evaluated the discriminative ability of driving features compared with conventional risk factors.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of community-dwelling older drivers enrolled in the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project at Washington University. Participants underwent annual Clinical Dementia Rating assessment, neuropsychological testing, and apolipoprotein ε4 (APOE ε4) genotyping. Driving behaviors were captured daily for up to 40 months using global positioning system-enabled in-vehicle dataloggers, recording trip frequency, duration, distance, time of day, speeding, hard braking, and spatial mobility (entropy, maximum distance, radius of gyration). Longitudinal changes were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models, adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and APOE ε4. Logistic regression with reciever operator curve analysis evaluated discrimination between older adults with MCI and those with NC, compared with conventional sociodemographic and genetic markers.
resultsAmong 298 participants (MCI, n = 56; NC, n = 242; mean age 75.1 years; 45.6% female), the groups were similar in age, sex, race, and APOE ε4 status at baseline, as well as in most driving behaviors. Over time, drivers with MCI showed greater reductions in monthly trip count (MCI: -0.501, standard error [SE]: 0.21, 95% CI [-0.923 to -0.083] vs NC: -0.523, SE: 0.09, 95% CI [-0.709 to -0.337]; DISCUSSION: MCI was associated with progressive declines in driving frequency, complexity, and spatial range, supporting naturalistic driving data as a potential unobtrusive digital biomarker for early cognitive decline. Limitations of the study include a predominantly White, highly educated sample and a lack of external validation, warranting cautious interpretation. Continuous monitoring could augment clinical assessments, inform driving safety decisions, and guide interventions to preserve mobility in aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.