MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

New Developments in the Biology of the Glucagon‐Like Peptides GLP‐1 and GLP‐2

2000· review· en· W2092926285 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Drucker, Julie A. Lovshin, Laurie L. Baggio, Min Nian, Feisal A. Adatia, Robin P. Boushey, Yuanfang Liu, Jumana Saleh, Bernardo Yusta, Louise A. Scrocchi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProglucagonGlucagon-like peptide-2Enteroendocrine cellGlucagon-like peptide-1IsletGastric emptyingBiologyReceptorGlucagonInternal medicineSignal transductionGastrointestinal hormoneEndocrinologyGlucagon receptorCell biologyHormoneDiabetes mellitusPeptide hormoneEndocrine systemMedicinePeptideType 2 diabetesBiochemistryStomach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glucagon-like peptides 1 and 2 (GLP-1 and GLP-2) are coencoded within a single mammalian proglucagon precursor, and are liberated in the intestine and brain. GLP-1 exerts well known actions on islet hormone secretion, gastric emptying, and food intake. Recent studies suggest GLP-1 plays a central role in the development and organization of islet cells. GLP-1 receptor signaling appears essential for beta cell signal transduction as exemplified by studies of GLP-1R-/- mice. GLP-2 promotes energy assimilation via trophic effects on the intestinal mucosa of the small and large bowel epithelium via a recently cloned GLP-2 receptor. The actions of GLP-2 are preserved in the setting of small and large bowel injury and inflammation. The biological actions of the glucagon-like peptides suggest they may have therapeutic efficacy in diabetes (GLP-1) or intestinal disorders (GLP-2).

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations29
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→