Insulin's discovery: New insights on its ninetieth birthday
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2012 marks the 90th year since the purification of insulin and the miraculous rescue from death of youngsters with type 1 diabetes. In this review, we highlight several previously unappreciated or unknown events surrounding the discovery. (i) We remind readers of the essential contributions of each of the four discoverers--Banting, Macleod, Collip, and Best. (ii) Banting and Best (each with his own inner circle) worked not only to accrue credit for himself but also to minimize credit to the other discoverers. (iii) Banting at the time of the insulin research was very likely suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that originated during his heroic service as a surgeon in World War I on the Western Front in 1918, including an infected shrapnel wound that threatened amputation of his arm. His war record along with the newly discovered evidence of a suicide threat goes along with his paranoia, combativeness, alcohol excess, and depression, symptoms we associate with PTSD. (iv) Banting's eureka idea, ligation of the pancreatic duct to preserve the islets, while it energized the early research, was unnecessary and was bypassed early. (v) Post discovery, Macleod uncovered many features of insulin action that he summarized in his 1925 Nobel Lecture. Macleod closed by raising the question--what is the mechanism of insulin action in the body?--a challenge that attracted many talented investigators but remained unanswered until the latter third of the 20th century.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".