MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089580506 · doi:10.1024/0040-5930/a001194

Die Entdeckung des Insulins

2020· article· de· W3089580506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Diem

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutische Umschau · 2020
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyGynecologyArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The initiative for the work that led to the discovery of insulin in Toronto in 1921 came from Frederik G. Banting. He worked under the direction of John J. R. Macleod in the Institute of Physiology at the University of Toronto. In his experimental program he was assisted by the student Charles H. Best. On dogs with experimental diabetes they demonstrated the blood sugar-lowering effect of pancreatic extracts. Thanks to collaboration with Macleod and James B. Collip, a biochemist from the University of Alberta who was on sabbatical in Toronto, the work was quickly crowned with success and the first clinical applications of the extracts became possible in early 1922. As early as 1923, Banting and Macleod were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Banting shared his half of the prize with Best, while Macleod shared his half with Collip. That their research was crowned with success is probably due in large part to Banting's abilities as a surgeon, Best's enthusiasm as a student, Collip's abilities as a biochemist and Macleod's prudence in bringing the group together and providing it with the necessary resources. In the 1950s, important advances were made in insulin research that were to spur further research in diabetology. These included the clarification of insulin structure and the possibility of measuring insulin in the blood. These two discoveries were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (see Kasten 1). In the 1960s-70s, insulin manufacturers developed ever better purification methods, which eventually led to preparations with very good tolerability and only very rare allergies. Later, in the 1980s, the possibility of biotechnological production of insulin led to an ever-increasing spread of human insulin. Based on the same technology, insulin analogues were produced in the 1990s and then in the new millennium, which, as "designer insulins" so to speak, enabled new clinically interesting active profiles. Today's variety of available insulins, modern forms of insulin application (insulin pens, insulin pumps) and blood glucose self-monitoring or continuous glucose monitoring form the basis of modern intensive insulin therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.014

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutische UmschauSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207