A Novel Dual-Hormone Insulin-and-Pramlintide Artificial Pancreas for Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas improves glycemia in type 1 diabetes but daytime control remains suboptimal. We propose two novel dual-hormone artificial pancreas systems. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a randomized crossover trial comparing a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas with rapid insulin-and-pramlintide and with regular insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas systems in adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants were assigned to the interventions in random order during three 24-h inpatient visits. Each visit was preceded by an outpatient hormonal open-loop run-in period of 10–14 days. The dual-hormone artificial pancreas delivered pramlintide in a basal-bolus manner, using a novel dosing algorithm, with a fixed ratio relative to insulin. The primary outcome was time in the range 3.9–10.0 mmol/L. RESULTS Compared with the rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas system, the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system increased the time in range from 74% (SD 18%) to 84% (13%) (P = 0.0014), whereas the regular insulin-and-pramlintide system did not change the time in range (69% [19%]; P = 0.22). The increased time in range with the rapid insulin-and-pramlintide system was due to improved daytime control (daytime time in range increased from 63% [23%] to 78% [16%], P = 0.0004). There were 11 (1 per 2.5 days) hypoglycemic events (<3.3 mmol/L with symptoms or <3.0 mmol/L irrespective of symptoms) with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 12 (1 per 2.3 days) and 18 (1 per 1.4 days) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively. Gastrointestinal symptoms were reported after 0% (0 of 112) of meals with the rapid insulin-alone system, compared with 6% (6 of 108) and 11% (11 of 104) with the rapid and regular insulin-and-pramlintide systems, respectively; none of the symptoms were severe. CONCLUSIONS A novel rapid insulin-and-pramlintide artificial pancreas improves glucose control compared with a rapid insulin-alone artificial pancreas (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02814123).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".