Following in Banting’s footsteps or straying from the path? Observations from contemporary diabetes innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While advancements in the treatment of diabetes continue to rapidly evolve, many of the newer technologies have financial barriers to care, opposing the egalitarian ethos of Banting who sold his patent on insulin for a nominal cost to allow it to be made widely available. Inequity in access to new therapies drives disparity in diabetes burden with potential for these gaps to widen in the future. The 2023 International Conference on Advanced Technologies and Treatments of Diabetes (ATTD) presented ground-breaking and current research in diabetes technology. Oral presentations of the ATTD conference 2023 were analyzed to describe what percentage of speakers discussed equity in their talks. Overall, less than a quarter of presenters discussed equity, though there was regional variation. To ensure that diabetes technologies reduce disparity and improve outcomes, we encourage future speakers at diabetes (technology) conferences to consider equity of diabetes care and incorporate this into their presentations.
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 | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".