S28 Liraglutide 3.0 Mg Reduces Severity Of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea And Body Weight In Obese Individuals With Moderate Or Severe Disease: Scale Sleep Apnoea Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims/objectives This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial compared the effects of liraglutide 3.0 mg to placebo, both as adjunct to diet and exercise, on obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) severity and body weight. Content Obese individuals (n = 359) without diabetes who had moderate or severe OSA and were unwilling/unable to use continuous positive airway pressure therapy were randomised 1:1 to liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo for 32 weeks (baseline characteristics: 48.5 years, males 71.9%, apnoea–hypopnoea index [AHI] 49.2 events/h, body weight 117.6 kg, BMI 39.1 kg/m2, HbA1c 5.7%). Outcomes At end-of-trial, the reduction in AHI was significantly greater with liraglutide 3.0 mg than placebo (Table). Liraglutide 3.0 mg produced significantly greater weight loss compared with placebo (Table) and enabled more individuals to reach ≥5% and >10% weight loss targets after 32 weeks (p < 0.0001, both). Oxygen saturation, polysomnographic measures, HbA1c and systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 32 weeks are summarised (Table). Nausea and diarrhoea were the most common adverse events with liraglutide 3.0 mg (27% and 17% of individuals, respectively). Discussion Liraglutide 3.0 mg produced significantly greater reductions than placebo in AHI, body weight, SBP and HbA1c in obese individuals with moderate/severe OSA and was generally well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".