Early Weight Loss with Liraglutide 3.0 mg Predicts 1‐Year Weight Loss and is Associated with Improvements in Clinical Markers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify an early response criterion for predicting ≥5% weight loss with liraglutide 3.0 mg at week 56 and to compare efficacy outcomes in early responders (ERs) and early nonresponders (ENRs). METHODS: Using pooled data from the SCALE Obesity and Prediabetes and SCALE Diabetes trials, weight loss of ≥4% at 16 weeks best predicted ≥5% weight loss after 56 weeks. Weight loss and changes in cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related quality of life were evaluated in ERs (≥4% weight loss at week 16) and ENRs (<4% weight loss at week 16) completing 56 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: Proportions of ERs/ENRs to liraglutide 3.0 mg were 77.3%/22.7% (individuals without type 2 diabetes, T2D) and 62.7%/37.3% (those with T2D). Greater mean weight loss was observed in ERs versus ENRs: 10.8% versus 3.0% (without T2D) and 8.5% versus 3.1% (T2D). In both trials, greater proportions of ERs versus ENRs achieved ≥5%, >10%, and >15% weight loss at week 56 with liraglutide 3.0 mg. Greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors and health-related quality of life scores were observed in ERs versus ENRs. CONCLUSIONS: The early response criterion was clinically useful to identify individuals who would achieve clinically meaningful weight loss at 56 weeks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it