Comparison of Oral Insulin Spray and Subcutaneous Regular Insulin at Mealtime in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the glucose pharmacodynamics after oral spray insulin (Oral-lyn , Generex Biotechnology, Toronto, ON, Canada) and subcutaneous (sc) injection of regular insulin in 10 subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: Basal therapy was twice-daily insulin glargine. Preprandial (30 min) regular insulin was given for 3 days, followed by 9 days of Oral-lyn, eight to 12 puffs immediately pre- and postprandially. Adjustments for glycemia were made using standard snacks and additional regular insulin or Oral-lyn. Peripheral glucose measurements were self-monitored in duplicate. Serum concentrations of fructosamine and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were determined at the start and the end of the study period. RESULTS: Average glucose concentrations (in mmol/L) for the 3-day regular insulin and 9-day Oral-lyn periods, respectively, were: pre-breakfast (B), 5.06 and 3.89; 1-h post-B, 8.39 and 7.67; post-B, 6.00 and 6.33; pre-lunch (L), 5.50 and 4.72; 1-h post-L, 7.83 and 7.89; 2-h post-L, 5.89 and 6.33; pre-dinner (D), 5.61 and 5.17; 1-h post-D, 7.22 and 7.83; and 2-h post-D, 6.11 and 6.67. Areas under the curve for both treatments were not significantly different (P = 0.6875). Fructosamine (mean +/- SD, 338.7 +/- 77.4 micromol/L and 321.7 +/- 63.4 micromol/L), and HbA1c (mean +/- SD, 7.5 +/- 1.5% and 7.2 +/- 1.2%) did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Regular insulin and Oral-lyn had similar glucodynamic effects in subjects with T1DM receiving twice-daily insulin analogue as baseline therapy. Intensive monitoring and timely corrections with additional snacks, additional sc regular insulin, or Oral-lyn puffs resulted in appropriate glycemic control as assessed by individual daily glycemic responses and, especially, normal preprandial glycemia. Protein glycation decreased, but not significantly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".