MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394570526 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2023-0464

Discontinuing semaglutide after weight loss: strategy for weight maintenance and a possible new side effect

2024· article· en· W4394570526 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas W. Carris, Shawn Wallace, Christopher DuCoin, Rahul Mhaskar, Marilyn Stern, Brian E. Bunnell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideWeight lossMedicineDiscontinuationExenatideInternal medicineLiraglutidePediatricsDiabetes mellitusObesityEndocrinologyType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) facilitate weight loss. Weight regain off therapy is concerning. We reported the case of a 35-year-old male prescribed oral semaglutide with 22.7 kg weight loss over 120 days. Herein, we describe the clinical course when discontinuing GLP-1 RA therapy, one approach to maintaining weight loss after discontinuation, and a possible new side effect. At day 120, we continued oral semaglutide 7 mg daily, down from 14 mg, for weight maintenance with subsequent weight regain. We re-increased semaglutide to 14 mg/day with weight re-loss within 1 month and weight maintance for a year. We then discontinued semaglutide; weight loss was maintained for 6 months. The patient reported lactose intolerance ∼13 months before starting semaglutide. During semaglutide therapy, the patient reported worsened lactose intolerance and new gluten intolerance. Food allergy/celiac testing were negative. Intolerances did not improve with semaglutide discontinuation. Six months after semaglutide discontinuation, the patient was diagnosed with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, possibly worsened by semaglutide. Factors potentially supporting weight maintenance were early drug treatment for new-onset obesity, non-geriatric age, strength training, and diet modification. The case highlights tailoring approaches to maintain weight loss without GLP-1 RAs. Trials are needed to optimize weight maintenance strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→