Dose comparison of ultrasonic transdermal insulin delivery to subcutaneous insulin injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eun-Joo Park1, Jeff Dodds2, Nadine Barrie Smith31Department of Bioengineering, 2Animal Resource Program, 3Graduate Program in Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USAAbstract: Prior studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of noninvasive transdermal insulin delivery using a cymbal transducer array. In this study the physiologic response to ultrasound mediated transdermal insulin delivery is compared to that of subcutaneously administered insulin. Anesthetized rats (350–550 g) were divided into four groups of four animals; one group representing ultrasound mediated insulin delivery and three representing subcutaneously administered insulin (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25 U/kg). The cymbal array was operated for 60 minutes at 20 kHz with 100 mW/cm2 spatial-peak temporal-peak intensity and a 20% duty cycle. The blood glucose level was determined at the beginning of the experiment and, following insulin administration, every 15 minutes for 90 minutes for both the ultrasound and injection groups. The change in blood glucose from baseline was compared between groups. When administered by subcutaneous injection at insulin doses of 0.15 and 0.20 U/kg, there was little change in the blood glucose levels over the 90 minute experiment. Following subcutaneous administration of insulin at a dose of 0.25 U/kg, blood glucose decreased by 190 ± 96 mg/dl (mean ± SD) at 90 minutes. The change in blood glucose following ultrasound mediated insulin delivery was −262 ± 40 mg/dl at 90 minutes. As expected, the magnitude of change in blood glucose between the three injection groups was dependant on the dose of insulin administered. The change in blood glucose in the ultrasound group was greater than that observed in the injection groups suggesting that a higher effective dose of insulin was delivered.Keywords: ultrasound, intensity, drug delivery, insulin, injections
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".