Role of impulsivity and reward in the anti-obesity actions of 5-HT <sub>2C</sub> receptor agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selective 5-HT 2C receptor agonist lorcaserin entered clinical obesity trials with the prevalent view that satiety was a primary mechanism of action. Subsequent Phase II and III trials demonstrated efficacy in terms of weight loss, although the overall effect size (~3% placebo-corrected change) is considered modest. Lorcaserin has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of obesity with lifestyle modification, but since its introduction in 2013 its sales are in decline, probably due to its overall modest effect. However, in some individuals, lorcaserin has a much more clinically significant effect (i.e. >10% placebo-corrected change), although what common features, if any, define these high responders is presently unknown. In the present article we highlight the evidence that alternative mechanisms to satiety may contribute to the anti-obesity effect of lorcaserin, namely effects on constructs of primary and conditioned reward and impulsivity. This may better inform the clinical evaluation of lorcaserin (and any future 5-HT 2C receptor agonists) to subgroups of obese subjects characterized by overeating due to maladaptive impulsivity and reward mechanisms. One such population might be individuals diagnosed with binge eating disorder.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".