MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976275758 · doi:10.1586/1744666x.5.1.55

Insulin auto-immunity: implications for the prevention of Type 1 diabetes mellitus

2008· article· en· W1976275758 on OpenAlexaff
Brandy Wicklow, Constantin Polychronakos

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinType 1 diabetesImmunologyDiseaseImmune systemType 2 diabetesPopulationImmunityBioinformaticsInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mounting evidence suggests insulin is an important and potentially initiating antigen in the pathogenesis of Type 1 diabetes. High-affinity insulin antibodies are found early in disease development and appear to predict progression. Insulin is the only Type 1 diabetes auto-antigen with exclusive pancreatic expression and the only one whose gene maps to a major susceptibility locus. Preclinical studies in rodent models of immune-mediated diabetes show great promise for the possibility of preventing disease by peripheral tolerization. Translation of this evidence to clinical trials of oral, intranasal and parenteral insulin to invoke immune tolerance and prevent diabetes has not proven successful to date, but promising results in a small subset of highest-risk individuals have maintained enthusiasm for this promising prevention strategy. Currently, studies of oral and intranasal insulin are ongoing to determine the optimal dose, timing and target population for Type 1 diabetes prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207