Characterization of people achieving different weight reduction categories with tirzepatide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What were the characteristics of participants who achieved body weight reduction in different categorical measures (<5%, ≥5% to<15%, ≥15% to<20%, ≥20% to<25%, ≥25% to<30%, and ≥30%) treated with tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-1? Methods : Tirzepatide, a once weekly GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist approved in the US for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic weight management, resulted in robust reductions in body weight in people with obesity without T2D in SURMOUNT-1. Baseline characteristics and change from baseline to week 72 for several efficacy parameters were summarized descriptively for treatment-adherent participants (≥75% doses administered), treated with tirzepatide 5, 10, or 15 mg (N=1834). Results : Participants achieving higher categorical weight reduction (%) were more likely to be female (53% to 87% from lowest to highest weight reduction category, respectively), White (65% to 84%), and to have a lower baseline body weight (115-102 kg). There were no apparent differences across categories in mean age, ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino [yes/no]), duration of obesity, current smoker status, or years of education. Higher percentage body weight reduction categories were associated with greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP; -0.2 to -12.9 mmHg from lowest to highest weight reduction category, respectively), waist circumference (-2.3 to -29.9 cm), total cholesterol (-5.8 to -19.3 mg/dL), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-3.4 to -25.8 mg/dL), triglycerides (7.9 to -58.9 mg/dL), HbA1c (-0.2 to -0.6%), and fasting serum insulin (1.0 to -7.4 mIU/L). Conclusion : In SURMOUNT-1, tirzepatide-treated participants reaching higher percentage body weight reduction categories were more likely to be of female sex, White race, and have a lower baseline body weight. Greater percentage body weight reduction translated to greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors including SBP, waist circumference, lipid levels, HbA1c, and serum insulin. Publication History Article published online: 18 April 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".