Cardiac effects of varying pulse charge and polarity of TASER® conducted electrical weapons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TASER(R) CEW (Conducted Electrical Weapon) is rapidly replacing the club in the English-speaking world for assisting in the arrest of resistant subjects and is now used by the majority of law enforcement agencies in the USA, Canada, and the UK. Animal safety studies of the CEW have focused on the risk of VF. We sought to determine the difference in cardiac capture and VF risk between the approximately 102 +/- 8 microC of the ubiquitous X26 and a me-tered 72 microC charge from an experimental device. It is well established from the bidomain theory and experimental data that a pacing electrode will capture the heart with significantly lower charge when the electrode touching the cardiac tissue is a cathode However, experimental data show that there is no difference in the ability of the anode vs the cathode to induce VF. We sought to evaluate the effect of polarity changes on cardiac capture and the induction of VF. Small swine ( approximately 20.0 kg) were anesthetized and ventilated. The apex of the heart was located via echocar-diography and a CEW probe was fully inserted towards the apex. Echocardiography was used to monitor cardiac contractions to determine cardiac capture. Both the X26 and the 72 microC pulses were delivered at both polarities to test for cardiac capture. Higher charge pulses (375 microC) were then delivered with both polarities to test for VF risk. The 72 microC experimental unit was unable to cause cardiac capture even in small swine with fully inserted probes directly over the apex of the heart. We found no polarity effect in the risk of VF in small swine with larger charge ( approximately 5x) pulses.
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".