Diabetes Insipidus: Celebrating a Century of Vasopressin Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus, widely known to the ancients for polyuria and glycosuria, budded off diabetes insipidus (DI) about 200 years ago, based on the glucose-free polyuria that characterized a subset of patients. In the late 19th century, clinicians identified the posterior pituitary as the site of pathology, and pharmacologists found multiple bioactivities there. Early in the 20th century, the amelioration of the polyuria with extracts of the posterior pituitary inaugurated a new era in therapy and advanced the hypothesis that DI was due to a hormone deficiency. Decades later, a subset of patients with polyuria unresponsive to therapy were recognized, leading to the distinction between central DI and nephrogenic DI, an early example of a hormone-resistant condition. Recognition that the posterior pituitary had 2 hormones was followed by du Vigneaud's Nobel Prize winning isolation, sequencing, and chemical synthesis of oxytocin and vasopressin. The pure hormones accelerated the development of bioassays and immunoassays that confirmed the hormone deficiency in vasopressin-sensitive DI and abundant levels of hormone in patients with the nephrogenic disorder. With both forms of the disease, acquired and inborn defects were recognized. Emerging concepts of receptors and of genetic analysis led to the recognition of patients with mutations in the genes for 1) arginine vasopressin (AVP), 2) the AVP receptor 2 (AVPR2), and 3) the aquaporin 2 water channel (AQP2). We recount here the multiple skeins of clinical and laboratory research that intersected frequently over the centuries since the first recognition of DI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".