A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction prescribing once-weekly semaglutide injections for patients with type 2 diabetes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed physicians' experiences of prescribing once-weekly (OW) semaglutide to patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Canada. Physicians who had prescribed OW semaglutide to ≥2 patients with T2D in the past 12 months and had been doing so for ≥3 months were surveyed during 1-17 October 2018. Prescribing reasons, treatment satisfaction and reasons for discontinuation were assessed. Of the 50 participants, 72% and 54% were prescribed OW semaglutide due to its superior glycemic control and effect on weight, respectively. Most physicians were more satisfied with injection frequency (62%), effect on weight (60%), achieving HbA1c target (54%) and therapy simplicity (50%) with OW semaglutide versus other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Treatment discontinuations in 13% of OW semaglutide-treated patients were reported by physicians, primarily due to gastrointestinal symptoms (70%). The survey suggests that physicians are satisfied with the OW semaglutide clinical effects. Video Abstract: http://links.lww.com/CAEN/A34.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".