Insulin: A 100-Year-Old Discovery With a Fascinating History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes has been known since antiquity. We present here a historical perspective on the concepts and ideas regarding the physiopathology of the disease, on the progressive focus on the pancreas, in particular on the islets discovered by Langerhans in 1869, leading to the iconic experiment of Minkowski and von Mering in 1889 showing that pancreatectomy in a dog induced polyuria and diabetes mellitus. Subsequently, multiple investigators searched for the active substance of the pancreas and some managed to produce extracts that lowered blood glucose and decreased polyuria in pancreatectomized dogs but were too toxic to be administered to patients. The breakthrough came 100 years ago, when the team of Frederick Banting, Charles Best, and James Collip working in the Department of Physiology headed by John Macleod at the University of Toronto managed to obtain pancreatic extracts that could be used to treat patients and rescue them from the edge of death by starvation, the only treatment then available. This achievement was quickly recognized by the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Banting and Macleod in 1923. At 32, Banting remains the youngest awardee of this prize. Here we discuss the work that led to the discovery and its main breakthroughs, the human characters involved in an increasingly dysfunctional relationship, the controversies that followed the Nobel Prize, and the debate as to who actually "discovered" insulin. We also discuss the early commercial development and progress in insulin crystallization in the decade or so following the Nobel Prize.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".