MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095348917

Long-acting insulin analogues

2015· article· en· W7095348917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulin glargineInsulinInsulin detemirHuman insulinBasal insulinDiabetes mellitus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 80 years ago, the discovery of insulin in Canada was a landmark event that changed the face of diabetes treatment. Insulin gave life to people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1 DM) who, until then, succumbed to their disease. Presently, millions of people use insulin for the treatment of T1 and T2 DM. Over the years, insulin preparations have evolved from the initial animal insulins that were crude and contaminated with split prod-ucts, impurities, and other pancreatic hormones, to the more purified animal insulins, the biosynthetic human insulins and, most recently, insulin analogues. The latter technology has resulted in the creation of rapid and long-acting analogues that provide optimal meal and basal insulins, respectively. A review of the characteristics of the long-acting insulin analogues, with a focus on glargine and detemir, is the subject of this issue of Endocrinology Rounds. Insulin glargine is available in Canada under the trade name, Lantus, while insulin detemir (Levemir), although released in Europe last fall, is not yet available in Canada. Characteristics of ideal basal insulin The ideal basal insulin should provide a sustained peakless action profile when injected

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207