| Title |
The pitfalls of per se thresholds in accurately identifying acute cannabis intoxication at autopsy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-018-0019-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mary K. Schwerdt, James R. Gill |
| Abstract |
Some laws in the United States define cannabis-impaired driving criteria using various per se language that uses specific concentrations of various cannabinoid compounds to establish driving-under-the-influence (DUI). We hypothesize that there will be decedents whose postmortem toxicology profiles would be considered indicative of an acute cannabinoid intoxication under varying DUI per se laws, despite having survived longer than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. This study examined decedents in whom quantified cannabis metabolites were detected in Connecticut medical examiner autopsy samples, in which the medically-confined survival interval was longer (4-12 and > 12 h) than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. Several of the 15 decedents, despite being intubated and/or comatose during the medically-confined period of abstinence, would have exceeded DUI per se limits based upon their toxicology results. The use of drug concentrations alone to equate to an acute cannabis intoxication may result in inappropriate arrest, prosecution, and civil liability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 70% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 75% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,548,880
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#240
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,151
of 337,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#6
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.