Interference of implanted cardiac pacemakers with TASER X26 dart mode application
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".