Eficacia y seguridad similares de liraglutida 3,0 mg en el control del peso en las distintas categorías basales del Sistema de Clasificación de la Obesidad Edmonton (EOSS): análisis a posteriori a las 56 semanas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los estudios SCALE Obesidad y Prediabetes y SCALE Diabetes evaluaron la eficacia y la seguridad de liraglutida 3,0 mg, junto con dieta y ejercicio para el manejo del peso. La perdida de peso, los criterios de valoracion secundarios y la seguridad se evaluaron a posteriori en distintos subgrupos del Sistema de Clasificacion de la Obesidad Edmonton (EOSS). Para ello, se asigno una puntuacion EOSS a los pacientes aleatorizados para recibir liraglutida 3,0 mg o placebo. Mas pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 (DM2) presentaron una puntuacion EOSS basal de 2 o 3, lo que indica mayor riesgo. Las medias de edad, peso, IMC y presion sistolica aumentaron con la puntuacion basal. De forma consistente en las distintas categorias EOSS, con liraglutida 3,0 mg se observo una mayor perdida de peso y mejorias en HbA1c, presion sistolica, lipidos y funcion fisica en la semana 56 versus placebo .En general, los efectos del tratamiento fueron independientes de las puntuaciones EOSS basales. Los eventos adversos y los eventos adversos graves fueron similares en las distintas categorias EOSS, concluyendo, por todo ello, que los efectos de liraglutida 3,0 mg y el perfil de seguridad fueron por lo general consistentes en las distintas puntuaciones EOSS basales.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".