The effects of cannabis and alcohol on driving performance and driver behaviour: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cannabis and alcohol are frequently detected in fatal and injury motor vehicle crashes. While epidemiological meta-analyses of cannabis and alcohol have found associations with an increase in crash risk, convergent evidence from driving performance measures is insufficiently quantitatively characterized. Our objectives were to quantify the magnitude of the effect of cannabis and alcohol-alone and in combination-on driving performance and behaviour. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and TRID. Of the 616 studies that underwent full-text review, this meta-analysis represents 57 studies and 1725 participants. We extracted data for hazard response time, lateral position variability, lane deviations or excursions, time out of lane, driving speed, driving speed variability, speed violations, time speeding, headway, headway variability and crashes from experimental driving studies (i.e. driving simulator, closed-course, on-road) involving cannabis and/or alcohol administration. We reported meta-analyses of effect sizes using Hedges' g and r. RESULTS: Cannabis alone was associated with impaired lateral control [e.g. g = 0.331, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.212-0.451 for lateral position variability; g = 0.198, 95% CI = 0.001-0.395 for lane excursions) and decreased driving speed (g = -0.176, 95% CI = -0.298 to -0.053]. The combination of cannabis and alcohol was associated with greater driving performance decrements than either drug in isolation [e.g. g = 0.480, 95% CI = 0.096-0.865 for lateral position variability (combination versus alcohol); g = 0.525, 95% CI = 0.049-1.002 for time out of lane (versus alcohol); g = 0.336, 95% CI = 0.036-0.636 for lateral position variability (combination versus cannabis; g = 0.475, 95% CI = 0.002-0.949 for time out of lane (combination versus cannabis)]. Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of cannabis on driving performance measures were similar to low blood alcohol concentrations. A scarcity of data and study heterogeneity limited the interpretation of some measures. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that cannabis, like alcohol, impairs driving, and the combination of the two drugs is more detrimental to driving performance than either in isolation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".