MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414371058 · doi:10.1093/jat/bkaf085

Recommendations for toxicological investigation of drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities—2025 update

2025· article· en· W4414371058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda L D’Orazio, Amanda L A Mohr, Ayako Chan‐Hosokawa, Curt Harper, Marilyn A. Huestis, Sarah Kerrigan, Jennifer F. Limoges, Amy Miles, Colleen E Scarneo, Karen S. Scott, Barry K. Logan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Poison controlTier 1 networkDriving under the influenceDrugHuman factors and ergonomicsTier 2 networkDelphi method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes updates to previously published recommendations for drug testing in drug-impaired driving cases. A survey of drug testing practices in driving under the influence of drug and motor vehicle fatality cases was sent to toxicology laboratories across the USA and Canada. Following the compilation of survey data, a virtual consensus meeting was held where forensic science practitioners and the authors reviewed the survey results and conducted a comprehensive review of the 2021 recommendations using a modified Delphi method. Tier I and Tier II screening and confirmation scope and cutoffs were re-evaluated to update the recommendations. Carisoprodol and meprobamate were moved to the Tier II scope from Tier I; gabapentin was promoted to the Tier I scope from Tier II; screening cutoffs were differentiated for immunoassay versus non-immunoassay (e.g. chromatographic) screening for blood and oral fluid; cross-reactivity screening requirements were removed and clarified with specific cutoff values; several cutoffs for screening and confirmation were increased or removed for blood and oral fluid; urine was removed as a recommended matrix for testing in cases involving suspected drug impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207