Headline: Revolutionary ‘Artificial Pancreas’ Is Proving to Be Incredible For Type 1 Diabetics
Dek: Thank you, science!
… the small print…
“The team found that volunteers trialling this class of device spent roughly 10 percent more time within a healthy range of blood glucose levels over any given 24 hour period.”
2 Likes
Sure, it’s not the greatest stat. I haven’t been shy about sharing my lack of excitement about CGM loops. But for people who struggle with control, maybe 10% more time in range is close to “incredible”. It can be viewed as progress for many.
As long as it doesn’t keep all focus on the same path. As long as alternative ideas stay alive, it’s okay.
2 Likes
As well, all implementations of the “artificial pancreas” are no more created equal than are all versions of insulin.
1 Like
Don’t forget it’s 10% and much less effort… Doesn’t sound bad to me!
3 Likes
no it’s not bad – but I can say from my own experience that using openAPS, and then not using it, that it does not completely “revolutionize” the disease. It is great for overnight but we had approximately the same control using manual bolusing during the day. The worry about highs the debates about what to bolus, the level of tension with a low, the constant thinking – it’s all still there.
Now hopefully whatever AP system they’re describing is more sophisticated than the one we used…but 10% more time in range does not really sound better than what we accomplish.
3 Likes
The title is just a clickbait, so of course hyperbole. As usual, it’s worth looking into the original article, which is completely void of any such statements. It’s just a meta study of results reported in various prior AP-related studies and 10% is some kind of weighted average. I do not find the paper particularly interesting.
2 Likes
The title is just a clickbait, so of course hyperbole.
I admit I clicked, so I guess it worked in the immediate sense.
1 Like