Outpatient 60‐hour day‐and‐night glucose control with dual‐hormone artificial pancreas, single‐hormone artificial pancreas, or sensor‐augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes: <scp>A</scp> n open‐label, randomised, crossover, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess whether the dual-hormone (insulin and glucagon) artificial pancreas reduces hypoglycaemia compared to the single-hormone (insulin alone) artificial pancreas in outpatient settings during the day and night. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a randomized, three-way, crossover trial we compared the dual-hormone artificial pancreas, the single-hormone artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) in 23 adults with type 1 diabetes. Each intervention was applied from 8 AM Day 1 to 8 PM Day 3 (60 hours) in outpatient free-living conditions. The primary outcome was time spent with sensor glucose levels below 4.0 mmol/L. A P value of less than .017 was regarded as significant. RESULTS: The median difference between the dual-hormone system and the single-hormone system was -2.3% (P = .072) for time spent below 4.0 mmol/L, -1.3% (P = .017) for time below 3.5 mmol/L, and -0.7% (P = .031) for time below 3.3 mmol/L. Both systems reduced (P < .017) hypoglycaemia below 4.0, 3.5 and 3.3 mmol/L compared to control therapy, but reductions were larger with the dual-hormone system than with the single-hormone system (medians -4.0% vs -3.4% for 4.0 mmol/L; -2.7% vs -2.2% for 3.5 mmol/L; and -2.2% vs -1.2% for 3.3 mmol/L). There were 34 hypoglycaemic events (<3.0 mmol/L for 20 minutes) with control therapy, 14 with the single-hormone system and 6 with the dual-hormone system. These differences in hypoglycaemia were observed while mean glucose level was low and comparable in all interventions (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The dual-hormone artificial pancreas had the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia, but the differences were not statistically significant. Larger studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".