Efficacy and Safety of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Across the Spectrum of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) generally exert robust glucose-lowering effects that are at least as effective as insulin. As monotherapies, changes from baseline in HbA1c with GLP-1RAs ranged from –1.9 to –0.7% in phase 3 trials. In addition, GLP-1RAs confer a low risk of hypoglycaemia and have a body-weight advantage (changes from baseline ranging from –4.0 to –0.4 kg). There is also evidence of significant reductions in risk for cardiovascular events with some of these agents, with a number of other trials underway. Gastrointestinal adverse events typically increase with GLP-1RAs, although these are generally mild to moderate in intensity and rarely require treatment discontinuation. The GLP-1RAs that are commercially available or in development vary in structure and pharmacokinetics. These differences affect the frequency of administration and can also affect their relative efficacy and safety. This review summarizes the findings of phase 3 glycaemic control trials of available GLP-1RAs and considers them in the context of the distinct clinical needs of individual patients.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".