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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".