Intraperitoneal Insulin Infusion Versus Islet Transplantation: Comparative Study in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to compare two strategies for insulin delivery in brittle type 1 diabetic patients: intraperitoneal insulin infusion (IPII) through an implantable pump and intraportal islet transplantation (IIT). METHODS: Thirteen consecutive patients (6 islet after kidney and 7 islet transplantation alone), treated with IIT according to the Edmonton protocol, were compared with 17 patients treated with IPII in the same center in a nonrandomized study. Both groups of patients were assessed for clinical profile, metabolic results, and adverse events during the 3-year period after implantation. RESULTS: Sex ratio, mean age, body mass index, diabetes duration, daily insulin need (DIN), blood creatinine, lipid and HbA1c levels, and frequency of diabetic complications did not differ significantly between the two groups before inclusion. The comparison of metabolic results 3, 6, and 12 months after IIT or IPII showed that while mean HbA1c significantly decreased over time in both groups, mean DIN, glycemia, and number of hypoglycemias less than 3.3 mmol/L per patient per week (Hypo) only significantly decreased in the IIT group versus baseline. At 12 months, mean DIN, HbA1c, and Hypo were significantly lower in the IIT versus IPII group. After 24 and 36 months, mean DIN, HbA1c, and Hypo remained significantly lower in the IIT group versus baseline, and mean HbA1c and DIN versus IPII. Adverse events were, however, fourfold more frequent with IIT versus IPII, though their numbers decreased over time. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that metabolic results improve with both methods, but were significantly better with IIT versus IPII, though with more frequent side effects.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".