MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113890013 · doi:10.1111/cei.13570

Identifying the ‘Achilles heel’ of type 1 diabetes

2020· review· en· W3113890013 on OpenAlexaff
Manuela Battaglia, Jane H. Buckner, Megan K. Levings, Sarah J. Richardson, F. Susan Wong, Timothy Tree

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Immunology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeelMedicineType 1 diabetesPathogenesisDiabetes mellitusImmunologyAnatomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary When Thetis dipped her son Achilles into the River Styx to make him immortal, she held him by the heel, which was not submerged, and thus created a weak spot that proved deadly for Achilles. Millennia later, Achilles heel is part of today's lexicon meaning an area of weakness or a vulnerable spot that causes failure. Also implied is that an Achilles heel is often missed, forgotten or under-appreciated until it is under attack, and then failure is fatal. Paris killed Achilles with an arrow ‘guided by the Gods’. Understanding the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in order to direct therapy for prevention and treatment is a major goal of research into T1D. At the International Congress of the Immunology of Diabetes Society, 2018, five leading experts were asked to present the case for a particular cell/element that could represent ‘the Achilles heel of T1D’. These included neutrophils, B cells, CD8+ T cells, regulatory CD4+ T cells, and enteroviruses, all of which have been proposed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes. Did a single entity emerge as ‘the’ Achilles heel of T1D? The arguments are summarized here, to make this case.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental ImmunologySame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207