Interference of implanted cardiac pacemakers with TASER X26 dart mode application
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of pacemaker patients among the general population and of conducted energy devices for law enforcement and self-defence is increasing. Consequently, the question on whether cardiac pacemaker patients are at particular risk becomes increasingly important, in particular, as the widespread use of such devices is planned in Europe. The risk of pacemaker patients has been investigated by numerical simulation at detailed anatomical models of patients with cardiac pacemakers implanted in left pectoral, right pectoral, and abdominal positions, with the monopolar electrode placed at the ventricular apex. The induced cardiac pacemaker interference voltages have been assessed for distant application of TASER X26 devices with dart electrodes propelled towards a subject. It could be shown that interference voltages are highest in abdominal pacemaker implantation, while they are about 20% lower in left or right pectoral sites. They remain below the immunity threshold level as defined by safety standards of implanted cardiac pacemakers and of implanted cardioverter defibrillators to prevent persisting malfunction or damage. However, induced voltages are high enough to be sensed by the pacemaker and to capture pacemaker function in case of hits at thorax and abdomen, frontal as well as dorsal.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it