What Was Known About Childhood Diabetes Mellitus Before the Discovery of Insulin?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been widely reported by historians that physicians were aware of two distinct types of diabetes mellitus by the 1880s, and that these were both similar to and the direct forerunners of type 1, juvenile-onset and type 2, adult-onset diabetes. The writings of prominent specialist physicians practicing just prior to the discovery of insulin in 1921-1922 were reviewed and there is little evidence that experts believed that adult and childhood diabetes were different. In fact, more than a decade passed after the discovery of insulin before diabetes in children and adults even began to be distinguished. Childhood diabetes was exceedingly rare in the early 20th century and diabetes was believed to be primarily a chronic disease of adults. It is interesting to speculate about what might have happened if the first pancreatic extract tests had been performed on adult-onset diabetics with insulin-resistant diabetes mellitus. Clearly, the results would have been disappointing and the discovery of insulin delayed. This essay explores how the test subject decision was made. It is fortuitous that a 14 year old boy with what was unequivocally type 1 diabetes was selected to be the first insulin recipient, and the rest is history.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".