Oral spray insulin in treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comparison of efficacy of the oral spray insulin (Oralin) with subcutaneous (SC) insulin injection, a proof of concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Proof-of-concept study of evaluation of metabolic effect of novel oral spray insulin (Oralin) formulation at breakfast time in subjects with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label, crossover, randomized study in (n = 23) subjects with type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. Subjects received each treatment, in random order, 3 to 7 days apart-a daily dose of SC injection (0.1 u/kg) on one occasion and Oralin spray (100 u) at time 0 min on another occasion. Subjects were given a standard breakfast containing 360 cal (Sustacal liquid meal) 10 min after the dose. Blood samples were taken at regular intervals to measure glucose, insulin, and C-peptide. RESULTS: The 30- and 60-min postprandial glucose levels were significantly lowered with Oralin versus that with the injection treatment (146 +/- 5 mg/dL Oralin vs 184 +/- 7 mg/dL injection at 30 min and 192 +/- 6 mg/dL Oralin vs 236 +/- 9 mg/dL injection, p < 0.003 at 60 min). The rise in serum insulin levels was significantly higher (Cmax = 98 +/- 6 uU/mL for Oralin at 30 min vs 65 +/- 3 uU/ml injection, p < 0.001). The reduction in C-peptide was greater in Oralin during the first 60 min (1.38 +/- 0.21 ng/mL Oralin vs 1.75 +/- 0.38 ng/mL injection, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study results demonstrated that Oralin could be used as meal insulin in place of mealtime-insulin injections in subjects with type 2 diabetes to regulate the postprandial glucose levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".