Dose-Response Relationship of Oral Insulin Spray in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and the dose-ranging effects of an oral insulin spray in comparison with subcutaneous regular insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, five-way, cross-over study, seven healthy volunteers were assessed under euglycemic clamp and received four different doses of oral spray and one dose of subcutaneous regular insulin. RESULTS: The time to maximum insulin concentration was shorter for oral insulin than for subcutaneous insulin (25.9 +/- 9 vs. 145.7 +/- 49.5 min, P < 0.05). Maximum serum insulin levels (C(max)) were comparable between the subcutaneous and 20 puffs of oral insulin (39.1 +/- 19.6 vs. 34.0 +/- 7.4 microU/ml, NS). The Ins-AUC(0-120) (area under the curve from 0 to 120 min for serum insulin) (339.8 +/- 218, 681.3 +/- 407, and 1,586.7 +/- 8 microU/ml, P < 0.05) and C(max) (7.6 +/- 2.8, 16.4 +/- 9.3, and 39.1 +/- 19.6 microU/ml, P < 0.005) proved a dose-response relationship for the three doses of oral insulin (5, 10, and 20 puffs, respectively). Oral insulin had an earlier onset of action (31.7 +/- 12 vs. 77.8 +/- 3 min, P < 0.05), earlier peak (44.2 +/- 10 vs. 159.2 +/- 68 min, P < 0.05), and a shorter duration of action (85.1 +/- 25 vs. 319.2 +/- 45 min, P < 0.05) compared with subcutaneous insulin. The maximum metabolic effect (1.7 +/- 1.0, 3.09 +/- 1.7, and 4.6 +/- 1.5 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P < 0.05) and the GIR-AUC(0-120) (amount of glucose infused from 0 to 120 min) (106.7 +/- 74.3, 162.9 +/- 116.1, and 254 +/- 123 mg/kg) increased in a dose-dependent relationship for the three doses. CONCLUSIONS: Oral insulin was absorbed in direct relation to the amount given and had a faster onset and a shorter duration of action compared with subcutaneous regular insulin. A dose-response relationship in the absorption and metabolic effect of the oral insulin was noted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".