MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126278946 · doi:10.2337/diabetes.51.5.1383

Insulin Expression Levels in the Thymus Modulate Insulin-Specific Autoreactive T-Cell Tolerance

2002· article· en· W2126278946 on OpenAlexafffund
Aziz Alami Chentoufi, Constantin Polychronakos

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsInsulinEndocrinologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type 1 diabetes results from autoimmune destruction of the insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cells. Evidence from our laboratory and others has suggested that the IDDM2 locus determines diabetes susceptibility by modulating levels of insulin expression in the thymus: the diabetes-protective class III alleles at a repeat polymorphism upstream of the insulin gene are associated with higher levels than the predisposing class I. To directly demonstrate the effect of thymic insulin expression levels on insulin-specific autoreactive T-cell selection, we have established a mouse model in which there is graded thymic insulin deficiency in linear correlation with insulin gene copy numbers, while pancreatic insulin remains unaltered. We showed that mice expressing low thymic insulin levels present detectable peripheral reactivity to insulin, whereas mice with normal levels show no significant response. We conclude that thymic insulin levels play a pivotal role in insulin-specific T-cell self-tolerance, a relation that provides an explanation for the mechanism by which the IDDM2 locus predisposes to or protects from diabetes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations262
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207