MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141531340 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12958

Fatal Insulin Overdoses: Case Report and Update on Testing Methodology

2015· article· en· W2141531340 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Sunderland, Sophia Wong, Carol K. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulinImmunoassayMedicineAutopsyInsulin aspartDiabetes mellitusDrug overdoseInsulin analogEmergency medicineInternal medicinePoison controlEndocrinologyAntibodyImmunologyHypoglycemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicidal insulin overdoses are an under-recognized and uncommon cause of death, often relying on scene and nonspecific autopsy findings. Here, we present a case report of a fatal exogenous insulin overdose in a patient with type 1 diabetes. In our case, there were no contributory autopsy findings; however, serum analog aspart insulin levels were c. 10× the predicted therapeutic upper limit (4000, reference 6.6-55 uU/mL), which correlated with scene findings. This was specifically determined by a newly developed immunocapture liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay, able to discriminate between various synthetic insulin analogs. Total insulin levels by immunoassay were highly elevated on the Siemens Advia Centaur, but not the Roche platforms (4741 vs. 5.2 uU/mL, respectively), showing variable sensitivity of detection within the same analog depending on assay. We discuss the prevalence and features to look for at autopsy in these types of cases. Additionally, analytical options for testing insulin levels, including new methodologies, guidance on collection of samples, as well as an outline of available historical reference range data are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.116 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207