MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604448406 · doi:10.1007/0-306-46826-3_21

Analogs of Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide With Increased Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV Resistance

2006· article· en· W1604448406 on OpenAlexaff
Kerstin Kühn‐Wache, Susanne Manhart, Torsten Hoffmann, Simon A. Hinke, Richard W. Gelling, Raymond A. Pederson, Christopher H.S. Mclntosh, H.U. Demuth

Bibliographic record

VenueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooks · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDipeptidyl peptidaseBinding affinitiesDipeptidyl peptidase-4Amino acidChemistryReceptorAmino terminalBiochemistryAffinitiesStereochemistryBiologyEndocrinologyPeptide sequenceType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEnzymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fully and partially DPIV-resistant analogs of GIP1–30 could be synthesized. The introduction of D-amino acids in P1- and P1’-position resulted in a slight reduction in binding and bioactivity. The examined C-terminal truncated fragments (with exception of the GIP1–30 fragment) showed no binding affinity, whereas the antagonistic N-terminal truncated fragments were able to bind to transfected rat GIP receptor. These results emphasize the hypothesis of an existing one-receptor-two-interaction-sites-model which was shown for peptides of the GRF-family. Concerning the potential use of GIP analogs in the treatment of type II diabetes mellitus, these results offer the possibility to synthesize analogs with reasonable half-life times and physiologically relevant binding affinities and bioactivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKluwer Academic Publishers eBooksSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207