Glucagon-Like Peptide 1, Insulin, Sensory Neurons, and Diabetic Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like insulin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) may have direct trophic actions on the nervous system, but its potential role in supporting diabetic sensory neurons is uncertain. We identified wide expression of GLP-1 receptors on dorsal root ganglia sensory neurons of diabetic and nondiabetic mice. Exendin-4, a GLP-1 agonist, increased neurite outgrowth of adult sensory neurons in vitro. To determine the effects ofexendin-4 in comparison with continuous low- or high-dose insulin in vivo, we evaluated parallel cohorts of type 1 (streptozotocin-induced) and type 2 (db/db) mice of 2 months' diabetes duration with established neuropathy during an additional month of treatment. High-dose insulin alone reversed hyperglycemia in type 1 diabetic mice, partly reversed thermal sensory loss, improved epidermal innervation but failed to reverse electrophysiological abnormalities. Exendin-4 improved both sensory electrophysiology and behavioral sensory loss. Low-dose insulin was ineffective. In type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia was uncorrected, and neither insulin nor exendin-4 reversed sensory electrophysiology, sensory behavior, or loss of epidermal axons. However, exendin-4 alone improved motor electrophysiology. Receptor for advanced glycosylated end products and nuclear factor-κB neuronal expression were not significantly altered by diabetes or treatment. Taken together, these results suggest that although GLP-1 agonists and insulin alone are insufficient to reverse all features of diabetic neuropathy, in combination, they might benefit some aspects of established diabetic neuropathy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".