Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autoimmune type 1 diabetes research and treatment is seemingly plagued with problems.Large and small, mostly well thought out clinical studies and trials since the early 1980ies have basically been negative.None of the treatments tested have reach clinical routine to replace current life-saving insulin replacement therapy.A combination type of therapy to diminish the requirement for insulin is yet to be found.The chronic autoimmune disease at the time of clinical onset of type 1 diabetes has been the "winner" in all attempts made so far to stifle the disease process.The disease is also the "winner" over islet transplantation, a potential cure for diabetes.Islet transplantation research was drastically reduced after it was found that the so-called Edmonton protocol did not yield sustainable insulin independence despite short-term restoration of endogenous insulin production and glycemic stability (1).The DCCT study, well known to all continues to underscore the importance of glucose control.The reduction in the risk of complications resulting from intensive therapy in type 1 diabetes patients persisted at least for four years after the study was completed, despite increasing hyperglycemia (2).Notwithstanding progress in the overall diabetes management we were all recently reminded of the fact that type 1 diabetes remains a deadly disease (3).Although mortality was the highest in poorly controlled
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".