MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac Effects of Electrical Stun Guns: Does Position of Barbs Contact Make a Difference?

2008· article· en· W2000155171 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentricular fibrillationTorsoPosition (finance)Prone positionCardiologySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of electrical stun guns has been rising among law enforcement authorities for subduing violent subjects. Multiple reports have raised concerns over their safety. The cardiovascular safety profile of these devices in relationship to the position of delivery on the torso has not been well studied. METHODS: We tested 13 adult pigs using a custom device built to deliver neuromuscular incapacitating (NMI) discharge of increasing intensity that matched the waveform of a commercially available stun gun (TASER(R) X-26, TASER International, Scottsdale, AZ, USA). Discharges with increasing multiples of output capacitances were applied in a step-up and step-down fashion, using two-tethered barbs at five locations: (1) Sternal notch to cardiac apex (position-1), (2) sternal notch to supraumbilical area (position-2), (3) sternal notch to infraumbilical area (position-3), (4) side to side on the chest (position-4), and (5) upper to lower mid-posterior torso (position-5). Endpoints included determination of maximum safe multiple (MaxSM), ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT), and minimum ventricular fibrillation induction multiple (MinVFIM). RESULTS: Standard TASER discharges repeated three times did not cause ventricular fibrillation (VF) at any of the five locations. When the barbs were applied in the axis of the heart (position-1), MaxSM and MinVFIM were significantly lower than when applied away from the heart, on the dorsum (position-5) (4.31 +/- 1.11 vs 40.77 +/- 9.54, P< 0.001 and 8.31 +/- 2.69 vs 50.77 +/- 9.54, P< 0.001, respectively). The values of these endpoints at position-2, position-3, and position-4 were progressively higher and ranged in between those of position-1 and position-5. Presence of ventricular capture at a 2:1 ratio to the delivered TASER impulses correlated with induction of VF. No significant metabolic changes were seen after standard NMI TASER discharge. There was no evidence of myocardial damage based on serum cardiac markers, electrocardiography, echocardiography, and histopathologic findings confirming the absence of significant cardiac effects. CONCLUSIONS: Standard TASER discharges did not cause VF at any of the positions. Induction of VF at higher output multiples appear to be sensitive to electrode distance from the heart, giving highest ventricular fibrillation safety margin when the electrodes are placed on the dorsum. Rapid ventricular capture appears to be a likely mechanism of VF induction by higher output TASER discharges.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.283 · 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