text_1: Artificial Pancreas Continues to Show Promise
text_2: "Not only does this story neglect to provide any caveats regarding research abstracts presented at conferences, it omits the number of subjects in the study. One of the most important pieces of context for this study was that it only had 12 subjects. That needed to be in the article. In general, the term ""artifical pancreas"" builds unrealistic hope for this technology for patients, and some balance and caution would’ve enriched the optimism with realism, doing a greater service to those with diabetes who are very interested in this topic. This story matters because hypoglycemia is dangerous and self-monitoring combined with use of insulin requires a patient to be an engaged and knowledgeable self-manager. The hope of this technology is that it would function more like a normal pancreas. But that’s it’s hope. Although the story provides little information about the risks and benefits observed in this small pilot study, it implies that it’s almost ready for prime-time, despite late hints at the end of the article that the technology is not there yet. The discussion of the Ritholz research on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compliance is somewhat disconnected and only loosely germane to the artificial pancreas. Research on CGM, which is approved and in use, has clinical relevance unrelated to the investigational ""artificial pancreases,"" of which it’s a component. We can only assume this study was covered in the article because it was discussed on the teleconference call that was a source of information for the story."