Comparing the Intestinotrophic Effects of 2 Glucagon‐Like Peptide‐2 Analogues in the Treatment of Short‐Bowel Syndrome in Neonatal Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In treating short-bowel syndrome (SBS), autonomy from parenteral nutrition (PN) relies upon intestinal adaptation, which can be augmented by glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) analogues. In neonatal piglets with SBS, we compared intestinal adaptation following treatment with 2 GLP-2 analogues: teduglutide (TED) and apraglutide (APRA) METHODS: Following 75% distal small-intestinal resection, piglets were allocated to 4 treatment groups: saline (CON: n = 8), twice weekly APRA (5 mg/kg/dose; n = 8), and TED once daily (TED, 0.05 mg/kg/dose; n = 8) or twice daily (TEDBID, 0.05 mg/kg/dose; n = 7). Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies were undertaken, and on day 7, small-intestinal length and weight were measured and jejunal tissue collected for histology. RESULTS: PK profiles were different between the 2 analogues. To achieve a comparable exposure to APRA, TED requires twice daily injection (TEDBID). Compared with CON, APRA and TEDBID increased small-bowel length (cm) (CON: 141, APRA: 166, TED: 153, TEDBID: 165; P = .004), whereas APRA increased small-bowel weight (g) (CON: 26, APRA: 33, TED: 28, TEDBID: 31; P = .007) and villus height (mm) (CON: 0.59, APRA: 0.90, TED: 0.58, TEDBID: 0.74; P < .001). CONCLUSION: APRA injected only twice during the 7 consecutive days demonstrated a superior intestinotrophic effect compared with TED injected once daily. Even at more comparable drug exposure, when TED was injected twice a day, APRA showed superior trophic activity at the mucosal level. This is highly relevant for the treatment of pediatric SBS, given the markedly lower dose frequency by subcutaneous injection of APRA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".