ArticleSleep2025
Evaluation of advanced emergency braking systems in drowsy driving-related real-world truck collisions.
Article in Sleep, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of European national driving regulations for obstructive sleep apnoea: challenges and recommendations.The European respiratory journal · 2025Article
- The benefits and pitfalls of advanced driver assistance systems for mitigating drowsy driving crashes.Sleep · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectivesThe effectiveness of advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS) in preventing drowsy driving-related truck collisions remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the damage-mitigation effect of AEBS on drowsy driving-related collisions involving large trucks using collision rate and damage amount.
methodsData collected by a Japanese transportation company from 1699 collisions involving 31 107 large trucks over 7 years were analyzed post hoc. The collision rate (number of trucks with collisions/total number of trucks) and damage amount (total amount of property damage and personal injury) were compared based on whether the collisions were caused by drowsy or nondrowsy driving and whether the trucks were equipped with AEBS or not.
resultsFor all and nondrowsy driving-related collisions, the collision rate for the 12 887 trucks with AEBS (1.62 and 1.20 collisions/truck/7 years, respectively) was significantly lower than that for the 18 220 trucks without AEBS (1.94 and 1.56 collisions/truck/7 years, respectively; p = .04 and p = .008, respectively). However, for drowsy driving-related collisions, the collision rate did not significantly differ between trucks with and without AEBS. The damage amount in neither type of collision (drowsy vs. nondrowsy) significantly differed between trucks with and without AEBS.
conclusionsRegarding the collision rate of large trucks, AEBS was effective in nondrowsy driving-related collisions, but not in collisions involving drowsy driving. The damage amount was not mitigated for trucks with and without AEBS regardless of the collision type. The limited effect of AEBS for damage mitigation suggests the need for combined use with other safety-support systems that intervene in driving operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.