MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393441758 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.13445

Effect of liraglutide on thigh muscle fat and muscle composition in adults with overweight or obesity: Results from a randomized clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4393441758 on OpenAlexaff
Ambarish Pandey, Kershaw V. Patel, Matthew W. Segar, Colby Ayers, Jennifer Linge, Olof Dahlqvist Leinhard, Stefan D. Anker, Javed Butler, Subodh Verma, Parag H. Joshi, Ian J. Neeland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNovo Nordisk
KeywordsLiraglutideOverweightMedicineObesityThighRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePhysical therapyEndocrinologyAnatomyDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Excess muscle fat is observed in obesity and associated with greater burden of cardiovascular risk factors and higher risk of mortality. Liraglutide reduces total body weight and visceral fat but its effect on muscle fat and adverse muscle composition is unknown. METHODS: and metabolic syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned to a once-daily subcutaneous injection of liraglutide (target dose 3.0 mg) or matching placebo for 40 weeks. Body fat distribution and muscle composition was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and 40-week follow-up. Muscle composition was described by the combination of thigh muscle fat and muscle volume. Treatment difference (95% confidence intervals [CI]) was calculated by least-square means adjusted for baseline thigh muscle fat. The association between changes in thigh muscle fat and changes in body weight were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. The effect of liraglutide versus placebo on adverse muscle composition, denoted by high thigh muscle fat and low thigh muscle volume, was explored. RESULTS: Among the 128 participants with follow-up imaging (92.2% women, 36.7% Black), median muscle fat at baseline was 7.8%. The mean percent change in thigh muscle fat over median follow-up of 36 weeks was -2.87% among participants randomized to liraglutide (n = 73) and 0.05% in the placebo group (absolute change: -0.23% vs. 0.01%). The estimated treatment difference adjusted for baseline thigh muscle fat was -0.24% (95% CI, -0.41 to -0.06, P-value 0.009). Longitudinal change in thigh muscle fat was significantly associated with change in body weight in the placebo group but not the liraglutide group. The proportion of participants with adverse muscle composition decreased from 11.0% to 8.2% over follow-up with liraglutide, but there was no change with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of predominantly women with overweight or obesity in the absence of diabetes, once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide was associated with a reduction in thigh muscle fat and adverse muscle composition compared with placebo. The contribution of muscle fat improvement to the cardiometabolic benefits of liraglutide requires further study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207