Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Insulin is an important antigen in T1D.Mucosal administration of antigens is thought to stimulate regulatory T-cells in preference to effector T-cells.Thus, a number of studies have used mucosal administration of insulin in attempts to modulate the T1D disease process.These have included both oral and nasal administration of insulin.The DPT-1 Study Group had conducted a large study of oral insulin in individuals at risk of developing T1D (1).Although oral insulin did not delay the development of T1D in the group as a whole, it did show beneficial effects in a subgroup with higher levels of insulin autoantibodies ( ‡80 nU ⁄ ml) at the time of enrolment.The current report is a follow-up of those subjects to evaluate the long-term intervention effects of oral insulin on the development of T1D and to assess the rate of progression to T1D before and after oral insulin treatment was stopped.Methods: The follow-up included subjects who had participated in the DPT-1 oral insulin study (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003) to prevent or delay T1D.In 2009, a telephone survey was conducted to determine whether T1D had been diagnosed and, if not, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), HbA1c and autoantibody levels were obtained on subjects who agreed to participate.Originally, 372 subjects had been randomised, and 97 had developed T1D during the original trial.Subsequently, 75% of the remaining 272 subjects were contacted -77 had been diagnosed with T1D and 54 others were evaluated with an OGTT.Results: In subjects in the subgroup with benefit in the original study (those with insulin autoantibodies ‡ 80 nU ⁄ ml at enrolment), the overall benefit of oral insulin remained significant (p = 0.05).However, the hazard rate in this group increased (from 6.4% to 10.0%) after cessation of therapy, which approximated the rate of individuals treated with placebo.Conclusion: The oral insulin treatment effect appeared to be maintained with additional follow-up in the subgroup with benefit in the original study.However, after therapy was stopped, the rate of developing diabetes in the oral insulin group increased to a rate similar to that of the placebo group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".