Two‐year effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg on control of eating in adults with overweight/obesity: <scp>STEP</scp> 5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg on 2-year control of eating. METHODS: In STEP 5, adults with overweight/obesity were randomized 1:1 to semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo, plus lifestyle modification, for 104 weeks. A 19-item Control of Eating Questionnaire was administered at weeks 0, 20, 52, and 104 in a subgroup of participants. P values were not controlled for multiplicity. RESULTS: In participants completing the Control of Eating Questionnaire (semaglutide, n = 88; placebo, n = 86), mean body weight changes were -14.8% (semaglutide) and -2.4% (placebo). Scores significantly improved with semaglutide versus placebo for Craving Control and Craving for Savory domains at weeks 20, 52, and 104 (p < 0.01); for Positive Mood and Craving for Sweet domains at weeks 20 and 52 (p < 0.05); and for hunger and fullness at week 20 (p < 0.001). Improvements in craving domain scores were positively correlated with reductions in body weight from baseline to week 104 with semaglutide. At 104 weeks, scores for desire to eat salty and spicy food, cravings for dairy and starchy foods, difficulty in resisting cravings, and control of eating were significantly reduced with semaglutide versus placebo (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight/obesity, semaglutide 2.4 mg improved short- and longer-term control of eating associated with substantial weight loss.
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".