Intrahepatic Islet Transplantation in Type 1 Diabetic Patients Does Not Restore Hypoglycemic Hormonal Counterregulation or Symptom Recognition After Insulin Independence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islet allotransplantation can provide prolonged insulin independence in selected individuals with type 1 diabetes. Whether islet transplantation also restores hypoglycemic counterregulation is unclear. To determine if hypoglycemic counterregulation is restored by islet transplantation, we studied hormone responses and hypoglycemic symptom recognition in seven insulin-independent islet transplant recipients using a 3-h stepped hypoglycemic clamp, and compared their responses to those of nontransplanted type 1 diabetic subjects and nondiabetic control subjects. Glucagon responses of islet transplant recipients to hypoglycemia were significantly less than that observed in control subjects (incremental glucagon [mean +/- SE]: -12 +/- 12 vs. 64 +/- 22 pg/ml, respectively; P < 0.05), and not significantly different from that of nontransplanted type 1 diabetic subjects (-17 +/- 10 pg/ml). Epinephrine responses and symptom recognition were also not restored by islet transplantation (incremental epinephrine [mean +/- SE]: 195 +/- 128 [islet transplant recipients] vs. 238 +/- 73 [type 1 diabetic subjects] vs. 633 +/- 139 pg/ml [nondiabetic control subjects], P < 0.05 vs. control; peak symptom scores: 3.3 +/- 0.9 [islet transplant recipients] vs. 3.1 +/- 1.1 [type 1 diabetic subjects] vs. 6.7 +/- 0.8 [nondiabetic control subjects]). Thus the results indicate that despite providing prolonged insulin independence and near-normal glycemic control in these patients with long-standing type 1 diabetes, hypoglycemic hormonal counterregulation and symptom recognition were not restored by intrahepatic islet transplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".