Long-Acting C-Peptide and Neuropathy in Type 1 Diabetes: A 12-Month Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lack of C-peptide in type 1 diabetes may be an important contributing factor in the development of microvascular complications. Replacement of native C-peptide has been shown to exert a beneficial influence on peripheral nerve function in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a long-acting C-peptide in subjects with type 1 diabetes and mild to moderate peripheral neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 250 patients with type 1 diabetes and peripheral neuropathy received long-acting (pegylated) C-peptide in weekly dosages of 0.8 mg (n = 71) or 2.4 mg (n = 73) or placebo (n = 106) for 52 weeks. Bilateral sural nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) and vibration perception threshold (VPT) on the great toe were measured on two occasions at baseline, at 26 weeks, and at 52 weeks. The modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS) was used to grade the peripheral neuropathy. RESULTS: Plasma C-peptide rose during the study to 1.8-2.2 nmol/L (low dose) and to 5.6-6.8 nmol/L (high dose). After 52 weeks, SNCV had increased by 1.0 ± 0.24 m/s (P < 0.001 within group) in patients receiving C-peptide (combined groups), but the corresponding value for the placebo group was 1.2 ± 0.29 m/s. Compared with basal, VPT had improved by 25% after 52 weeks of C-peptide therapy (Δ for combined C-peptide groups: -4.5 ± 1.0 μm, placebo group: -0.1 ± 0.9 μm; P < 0.001). mTCNS was unchanged during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly subcutaneous administration of long-acting C-peptide for 52 weeks did not improve SNCV, other electrophysiological variables, or mTCNS but resulted in marked improvement of VPT compared with placebo.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".