Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the discovery of insulin in 1922 (1), the skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, and liver are traditionally regarded as key insulin-sensitive organs (2). Evidence of insulin actions in the brain emerged more recently, approximately 35 years ago, with studies showing that the hypothalamic actions of insulin regulate peripheral energy homeostasis (reviewed in [3]). Interestingly, insulin receptors were also detected in high densities in other brain regions (4), suggesting that insulin’s role in the central nervous system (CNS) extends beyond hypothalamic control of energy homeostasis. The hippocampus, a brain region key to memory and learning, was found to present particularly high levels of insulin receptors, suggesting that insulin could play a role in synaptic plasticity mechanisms and memory formation in rodents and humans. Indeed, studies using in vitro and in vivo experimental models indicated that insulin regulates neuronal survival, acts as a growth factor, and regulates circuit function and plasticity (reviewed in [5]). In cultured hippocampal neurons, insulin receptors present a punctate dendritic distribution that is consistent with the presence of insulin receptors at synaptic compartments (6). In harmony with the proposed role of insulin signaling in cognition, intranasal insulin treatment—a method achieving direct CNS delivery of insulin without invasiveness or major complications (7)—improves memory in healthy adults, without changing blood levels of insulin or glucose (reviewed in [8]). While these recent …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".