ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2013
The artificial pancreas: is it important to understand how the β cell controls blood glucose?
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Algorithms for a closed-loop artificial pancreas: the case for proportional-integral-derivative control.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- Recent advances in the precision control strategy of artificial pancreas.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Review
- The artificial pancreas: evaluating risk of hypoglycaemia following errors that can be expected with prolonged at-home use.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2016Article
- Slow potentials encode intercellular coupling and insulin demand in pancreatic beta cells.Diabetologia · 2015Article
- Feasibility study of a bio-inspired artificial pancreas in adults with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been more than 7 years since the first fully automated closed-loop insulin delivery system that linked subcutaneous insulin delivery and glucose sensing was published. Since the initial report, the physiologic insulin delivery (PID) algorithm used to emulate the β cell has been modified from the original proportional-integral-derivative terms needed to fit the β cell's biphasic response to a hyperglycemic clamp to include terms emulating cephalic phase insulin release and the effect of insulin per se to inhibit insulin secretion. In this article, we compare the closed-loop glucose profiles obtained as each new term has been added, reassess the ability of the revised PID model to describe the β cells' insulin response to a hyperglycemic clamp, and look for the first time at its ability to describe the response to a hypoglycemic clamp. We also consider changes that might be added to the model based on perfused pancreas data. We conclude that the changes introduced in the PID model have systematically improved the closed-loop meal response. We note that the changes made do not adversely affect the ability of the model to fit hyperglycemic clamp data but are necessary to fit the response to a hypoglycemic clamp. Finally, we note a number of β cell characteristics observed in the perfused pancreas have not been included in the model. We suggest that continuing the effort to understand and incorporate aspects of how the β cell achieves glucose control can provide valuable insights into how improvements in future artificial pancreas algorithms might be achieved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.