Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original groundbreaking research occurred in 1921, when Frederick Banting and Charles Best from Canada successfully isolated insulin from dogs [1].The first insulin therapy was administered to Leonard Thompson in 1922, to treat juvenile diabetes.The year 2021 marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin [2].It is not well known how and who introduced insulin to Korea.In Korea, who was the first physician to prescribe insulin, and who was the first person to receive it?The history of medicine in Korea has been diverse and challenging due to internal and external circumstances, as with modern and contemporary Korean history.We could not find any official record of the first use of insulin or any information about early diabetes patients and the treatments they received.Even from the times earlier than the 1970s, there are no records of imports, exports, licenses, and sales of insulin for domestic use.It is assumed that insulin was introduced to Korea by missionaries at the time of insulin's initial discovery or by a Japanese doctor during the Japanese Colonial period.Herein, we investigated the early history of insulin use in Korea, by looking back at old news articles and by interviewing senior academics and early insulin product importers.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".