MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918064491 · doi:10.1210/jc.2015-3003

Single- and Dual-Hormone Artificial Pancreas for Overnight Glucose Control in Type 1 Diabetes

2015· article· en· W1918064491 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmad Haidar, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret, Laurent Legault, Leif E. Lovblom, Rohan Rakheja, Virginie Messier, Émilie D'Aoust, C. Marcelo Falappa, Tara D. Justice, Andrej Orszag, Holly Tschirhart, Maryse Dallaire, Martin Ladouceur, Bruce A. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersMedtronicCanadian Diabetes AssociationAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsInterquartile rangeMedicineInternal medicineArtificial pancreasEndocrinologyGlucagonGlycemicInsulinDiabetes mellitusHormoneType 2 diabetesInsulin pumpCrossover studyType 1 diabetesPancreasPlaceboPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The added benefit of glucagon in artificial pancreas systems for overnight glucose control in type 1 diabetes has not been fully explored. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of dual-hormone (insulin and glucagon) artificial pancreas, single-hormone (insulin alone) artificial pancreas, and conventional insulin pump therapy. DESIGN: This study was a three-center, three-arm, open-label, randomized, crossover controlled trial involving three interventions, each applied over a night after a high carbohydrate/high fat meal and a second after exercise to mimic real-life glycemic excursions. SETTING: The study was conducted in a home setting. PATIENTS: Twenty-eight type 1 diabetes participants (21 adults and seven adolescents) participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Dual-hormone artificial pancreas, single-hormone artificial pancreas, and conventional pump therapy was activated from 9:00 PM to 7:00 AM. MAIN OUTCOME: The main outcome was a proportion of time in target (4-8 mmol/L) by continuous glucose monitoring from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) percentage of time-in-target glucose range was 47% (36%-71%) for conventional therapy, higher on both single-hormone (76% [65%-91%], P < .001) and dual-hormone artificial pancreas (81 [68%-93%], P < .001). The median (interquartile range) time spent below 4 mmol/L was 14% (4%-28%) for conventional therapy, lower on both single-hormone (5% [0%-13%], P = .004) and dual-hormone artificial pancreas (1% [0%-8%], P < .001). There were 14 hypoglycemic events on conventional therapy compared with six incidences on the single-hormone artificial pancreas (P = .059) and three incidences on the dual-hormone artificial pancreas (P = .017). None of these outcomes differed significantly between single- and dual-hormone configurations. CONCLUSIONS: Single- and dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems both provided better glucose control than conventional therapy. Although the dual-hormone configuration did not increase overnight time-in-target glucose levels, an effect on lowering hypoglycemia risk cannot be ruled out.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207