Greater Combined Reductions of HbA1c ≥ 1.0% and Body Weight Loss ≥ 5.0% or ≥ 10.0% with Orally Administered Semaglutide Versus Comparators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A post hoc analysis of the PIONEER 1–5 and 8 trials assessed the clinically relevant composite endpoints of HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) reduction ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% or ≥ 10% with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators. In the PIONEER trials, people with type 2 diabetes were randomised to orally administered semaglutide versus placebo (PIONEER 1, 4, 5 and 8), empagliflozin (PIONEER 2), sitagliptin (PIONEER 3) and liraglutide (PIONEER 4) for 26–78 weeks. This analysis assessed the proportion of people achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% at week 26 and at end of treatment, and the proportion of people achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 10% at end of treatment. Overall, 3506 people in PIONEER 1–5 and 8 were included. At week 26 and at end of treatment, odds of achieving the composite endpoint of an HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 5% were significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide 14 mg than with placebo (PIONEER 1, 4, 5 and 8; all p < 0.0001), empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2, p < 0.0001), sitagliptin 100 mg (PIONEER 3, p < 0.0001) and liraglutide 1.8 mg (PIONEER 4, p < 0.0001). Odds of achieving the composite endpoint of HbA1c reduction of ≥ 1% and body weight loss of ≥ 10% at end of treatment were also significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators. In PIONEER 1–5 and 8, odds of achieving clinically relevant reductions in both HbA1c and body weight were significantly greater with orally administered semaglutide versus comparators.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".