[Insulin shock treatment in The Hague from 1937 to the end of the 1950s].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insulin shock treatment began to be applied in the 1930s to patients with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia. Although lacking theoretical and empirical support, the therapy was received enthusiastically and applied quite frequently. However, it quietly disappeared from the treatment repertories in the 1950s. AIM: To provide insight into experiences with insulin shock therapy in the psychiatric clinics in The Hague and into the factors that led to the therapy’s rise and fall. METHOD: We searched the literature via PubMed, Medline, Embase and earlier articles using the search terms 'insulin shock treatment' and 'insulin coma therapy', and we studied medical records and other relevant documents from the former Rosenburg and Bloemendaal psychiatric clinics in The Hague. RESULTS: Insulin shock therapy made its debut in The Hague in 1937. The improvement rates, measured according to the guidelines issued by the Canadian Committee for Mental Hygiene, were good. There were relatively few reports of serious complications. The lack of insulin during World War II and subsequent staff shortages had a negative impact on the use of the therapy. CONCLUSION: Insulin shock therapy was applied in The Hague just as successfully as elsewhere. The abandonment of the therapy in The Hague seems to have been due to practical rather than to evidence-based considerations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".