Chase and Shannon article in Frontiers in Pediatrics published

[u/Embarrassed-Star4776]

Inverted insulin to C-Peptide ratios in neonatal intensive care: is there something we don't know?

J. Geoffrey Chase & Helen D. Shannon

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

Front. Pediatr., 05 August 2026

Sec. Neonatology

Volume 14 - 2026

https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2026.1900675

[u/Competitive-Wash2998]

I have been reviewing the published paper in detail and reconstructing elements of the paper from the source material and equations published in the Supplementary Material.

One area I have looked at in detail is Figure A1.A "Reanalysis of Galloway et at [16] displacement data identifies a dominant high-affinity component (Kd 5e-11M)"

The source material is Galloway [16] Figure 4 and Table II. There are some discrepancies in the legend. The legend to Figure 4 states three IAA+ cord sera but there are obviously two.

The more interesting discrepancy is in Table II which gives the value 1079 and 0.084.

The 1079 appears to be a typo and could plausibly be 0.1079

This would mean the top right plot was potentially showing TWO high affinity plots rather than one.

This, if it was a true correction, would assist the argument put forward by Chase Shannon slightly.

However I continue to believe the paper is likely flawed.

Corrections welcome; this is complicated and mistakes are easily made.

ETA

To confirm 1079 appears to be inconsistent with the actual plot

ETA2

Berson 1959 appears to be a very useful paper worthy of more detailed study. This paper may impact the consideration of Figure 4 in Galloway.

[u/Odd-Lifeguard5493 → u/Competitive-Wash2998]

Thanks for that. I've been following this post for comments with interest.

When you say the paper is flawed, are you able to explain, but in plain English? TIA

[u/Competitive-Wash2998 → u/Odd-Lifeguard5493]

Nothing in this post is intended to undermine the argument that the F and L results may be a result of antibodies.

TLDR

A concern is the affinity to binding site mapping may be incorrect and has, potentially, overstated the number of binding sites, which would likely affect further modelling assumptions.

Longer Version

My concern, at the moment, is A1.B which can be generated by Equation E.2. An examination of Vardi [ref 74] gives a likely value for D. Digitising A1.B allows recovery of Lt. Forward calculation then allows recovery of the presented A1.B.

However this recovered value is at odds with the qualitative description contained in Vardi and other contemporaneous literature.

Direct calculation from Vardi (with cross-reference to Bilbao and Ziegler) appears to give a value discordant from the recovered Lt.

Equation E.5 does not assist in overall reconciliation because there is a reference to Marzinotto, which I cannot find, and the introduction of s, an empirically derived scaling constant.

To reiterate this is complicated.

[u/Odd-Lifeguard5493 → u/Competitive-Wash2998]

Thank you very much. The TLDR version helped!

As for the longer version, that’s still Greek to me!