Cannabis and Driving in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Epidemiological studies have found that cannabis increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision. Cannabis use is increasing in older adults, but laboratory studies of the association between cannabis and driving in people aged older than 65 years are lacking. Objective: To investigate the association between cannabis, simulated driving, and concurrent blood tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using an ecologically valid counterbalanced design, in this cohort study, regular cannabis users operated a driving simulator before, 30 minutes after, and 180 minutes after smoking their preferred legal cannabis or after resting. This study was conducted in Toronto, Canada, between March and November 2022 with no follow-up period. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Most participants chose THC-dominant cannabis with a mean (SD) content of 18.74% (6.12%) THC and 1.46% (3.37%) cannabidiol (CBD). Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was SD of lateral position (SDLP, or weaving). Secondary outcomes were mean speed (MS), maximum speed, SD of speed, and reaction time. Driving was assessed under both single-task and dual-task (distracted) conditions. Blood THC and metabolites of THC and CBD were also measured at the time of the drives. Results: A total of 31 participants (21 male [68%]; 29 White [94%], 1 Latin American [3%], and 1 mixed race [3%]; mean [SD] age, 68.7 [3.5] years), completed all study procedures. SDLP was increased and MS was decreased at 30 but not 180 minutes after smoking cannabis compared with the control condition in both the single-task (SDLP effect size [ES], 0.30; b = 1.65; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.93; MS ES, -0.58; b = -2.46; 95% CI, -3.56 to -1.36) and dual-task (SDLP ES, 0.27; b = 1.75; 95% CI, 0.21 to 3.28; MS ES, -0.47; b = -3.15; 95% CI, -5.05 to -1.24) conditions. Blood THC levels were significantly increased at 30 minutes but not 180 minutes. Blood THC was not correlated with SDLP or MS at 30 minutes, and SDLP was not correlated with MS. Subjective ratings remained elevated for 5 hours and participants reported that they were less willing to drive at 3 hours after smoking. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, the findings suggested that older drivers should exercise caution after smoking cannabis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".