Dual‐hormone artificial pancreas: benefits and limitations compared with single‐hormone systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advances have made the artificial pancreas a reality. This has the potential to improve the lives of individuals with Type 1 diabetes by reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, achieving better overall glucose control, and enhancing quality of life. Both single-hormone (insulin-only) and dual-hormone (insulin and glucagon) systems have been developed; however, a focused review of the relative benefits of each artificial pancreas system is needed. We reviewed studies that directly compared single- and dual-hormone systems to evaluate the efficacy of each system for preventing hypoglycaemia and maintaining glycaemic control, as well as their utility in specific situations including during exercise, overnight and during the prandial period. We observed additional benefits with the dual-hormone artificial pancreas for reducing the risk of hypoglycaemic events overall and during exercise over the study duration. The single-hormone artificial pancreas was sufficient for maintenance of euglycaemia in the overnight period and for preventing late-onset post-exercise hypoglycaemia. Future comparative studies of longer duration are required to determine whether one system is superior for improving mean glucose control, eliminating severe hypoglycaemia, or improving quality of life.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".