Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Driving into diagnosis: Leveraging high-resolution telematics and sensorimotor profiling to identify preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Parhizi B, Kolady R, Vogel MT, Singh RK, Bekena S, Chokkalingam R, Zhu Y, Babulal GM.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 2025-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Early detection of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) could expand preventative care. Current biomarkers are costly, invasive, or lack generalizability. Driving and sensorimotor performance may reveal prodromal changes. Objective We tested whether features from high-frequency driving trips detect preclinical AD and whether demographic, genetic, or sensorimotor data improve accuracy. Methods Drivers aged ≥ 65 (n = 254) from Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System (DRIVES) completed cerebrospinal fluid Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 and amyloid Positron emission tomography (PET) to label amyloid positive (preclinical AD) or negative. A GPS datalogger recorded location (1 Hz) and accelerometer/gyroscope (20 Hz) data between June 2022 and January 2024. Eleven driving features (e.g., average speed, jerk, idle time, turns) were extracted per trip. Vision, hearing, olfaction, gait, and grip strength were assessed. TabNet models classified amyloid status using (1) driving only, (2) driving plus age and APOE ε4, and (3) driving plus age, APOE ε4, sex, and education. LightGBM models evaluated sensorimotor features. Performance was measured on a 20% held-out test set (AUC, accuracy, precision, recall, F1). Results The top-performing model (driving, age, APOE ε4, sex, education) achieved an AUC of 0.84, accuracy of 0.85, and F1 score of 0.85. Key predictors were idle time, turns, and average jerk. Sensorimotor models performed modestly (AUCs of 0.66 [sensory alone] and 0.67 [sensory and sociodemographic]), with grip strength and word-in-noise scores as the top contributors. Conclusions A high-frequency trip's driving telemetry, combined with age and APOE ε4 status, discriminates preclinical AD, outperforming multisensory measures. Driving offers a scalable, digital biomarker to complement conventional testing. Monitoring may enable population-level screening for older adults at risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Parhizi, B., Kolady, R., Vogel, M. T., Singh, R. K., Bekena, S., Chokkalingam, R., et al. (2025). Driving into diagnosis: Leveraging high-resolution telematics and sensorimotor profiling to identify preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823251407543
Vancouver
Parhizi B, Kolady R, Vogel MT, Singh RK, Bekena S, Chokkalingam R, et al. Driving into diagnosis: Leveraging high-resolution telematics and sensorimotor profiling to identify preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 2025. doi:10.1177/25424823251407543. PMID: 41393339.
BibTeX
@article{parhizi2025-41393339,
author = {Parhizi, B. and Kolady, R. and Vogel, M. T. and Singh, R. K. and Bekena, S. and Chokkalingam, R. and Zhu, Y. and Babulal, G. M.},
title = {{Driving into diagnosis: Leveraging high-resolution telematics and sensorimotor profiling to identify preclinical Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1177/25424823251407543},
pmid = {41393339},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/25424823251407543}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The top-performing model (driving, age, APOE ε4, sex, education) achieved an AUC of 0.84, accuracy of 0.85, and F1 score of 0.85.
Study details
- Participants254
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 254 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41393339) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “high-resolution”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “high-resolution”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.