Safety of intranasal insulin administration in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery: An open-label, nonrandomized, dose-escalation study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to determine the maximum safe dose of intranasal insulin administration during cardiac surgery. Methods: This open-label, Phase 1, single-center, dose-escalation clinical trial recruited patients scheduled to undergo elective cardiac surgery or major vascular surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass between February and September 2021. They were grouped into 5 dose-escalation cohorts and administered 0, 40, 80, 160, and 240 IU insulin (n = 6 in each group) via a metered nasal dispenser after the induction of general anesthesia. Blood samples were collected at 10-minute intervals for the first 60 minutes and at 30-minute intervals thereafter. Hypoglycemia was defined as a blood glucose level <70 mg/dL. Patient recruitment was terminated after hypoglycemia was observed in 2 patients in any of the groups. Results: In total, 27 of 29 enrolled patients were administered intranasal insulin or saline. Hypoglycemia was not observed after the administration of intranasal insulin in the 0, 40, 80, or 160 IU groups; however, it was observed in 2 of 3 patients in the 240 IU group. The serum insulin concentration was elevated in the 160-IU group, but the C-peptide concentration was not elevated in any of the groups. Conclusions: The administration of up to 160 IU intranasal insulin did not induce clinically significant hypoglycemia. However, 160 IU intranasal insulin should be administered cautiously because insulin can enter the systemic circulation in a dose-dependent manner.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it