Nicolae Constantin Paulescu :co-découvreur oublié de la découverte de l'insuline il y a 100 ans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2021-2022, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin which in 1923 was awarded with a Nobel Prize to F.G. Banting (surgeon) and J.J.R. Macleod (physiologist, head of the laboratory at the University of Toronto, Canada). Then, this prize was shared with C.H. Best (student) and J.B. Collip (biochemist). They showed that a pancreas extract injected into a pancreatectomized dog, so diabetic, lowers his blood sugar and keep him alive. Their first article was published in February 1922 in The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine (St Louis), 8 months after the Archives Internationales de Physiologie (Paris, Liège) received an article from the Romanian N. Paulescu on June 21, 1921, already proving that a pancreatic extract injected into a diabetic dog, reduced blood sugar, acetonemia and urea. He thought he should have been associated with the Nobel Prize, because his experimental results were comparable but earlier than those of the group of Toronto. The problem was that the Romanian and Canadian pancreatic extracts were not pure enough to be injected into a human. Thanks to Collip who was able to separate the insulin from the proteins with a 95% alcohol solution, the purified extract was successfully injected into a dying diabetic child on January 23, 1922. In 2002, there was an attempt to rehabilitate Paulescu's work, but this was postponed due to his anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi views. Since the discovery of insulin a century ago, major progress has been made concerning the action of insulins and their production.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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".