Effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg on physical functioning and weight‐ and health‐related quality of life in adults with overweight or obesity: Patient‐reported outcomes from the <scp>STEP</scp> 1–4 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To summarize the effects of semaglutide 2.4 mg on weight-related quality of life (WRQOL) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), focusing on the confirmatory secondary endpoint of physical functioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The STEP 1-4 Phase 3a, 68-week, double-blind, randomized controlled trials assessed the efficacy and safety of semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo in individuals with overweight/obesity. WRQOL and HRQOL were assessed by change from baseline to Week 68 in two different but complementary measures, the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite Clinical Trials Version (IWQOL-Lite-CT; STEP 1 and 2) and the SF-36v2 Health Survey Acute (SF-36v2; STEP 1-4). RESULTS: Superiority for semaglutide 2.4 mg over placebo based on IWQOL-Lite-CT and SF-36v2 physical functioning scores was confirmed in STEP 1 and 2 and in STEP 1, 2 and 4, respectively. At Week 68, a greater proportion of participants treated with semaglutide 2.4 mg than with placebo reached meaningful within-person change (MWPC) thresholds for IWQOL-Lite-CT Physical Function scores in STEP 1 (51.8% vs. 28.3%; p < 0.0001) and STEP 2 (39.6% vs. 29.5%; p = 0.0083) and the MWPC threshold for SF-36v2 Physical Functioning in STEP 1 (39.8% vs. 24.1%; p < 0.0001), STEP 2 (41.0% vs. 27.3%; p = 0.0005) and STEP 4 (18.0% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001). All other IWQOL-Lite-CT and SF-36v2 scale scores in STEP 1-4 were numerically improved with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo, except for SF-36v2 Role Emotional in STEP 2. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 2.4 mg significantly improved physical functioning, with greater proportions of participants achieving MWPC compared with placebo, and showed beneficial effects on WRQOL and HRQOL beyond physical functioning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".