Long-term kidney outcomes of semaglutide in obesity and cardiovascular disease in the SELECT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The SELECT trial previously reported a 20% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with semaglutide ( n = 8,803) versus placebo ( n = 8,801) in patients with overweight/obesity and established cardiovascular disease, without diabetes. In the present study, we examined the effect of once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg on kidney outcomes in the SELECT trial. The incidence of the pre-specified main composite kidney endpoint (death from kidney disease, initiation of chronic kidney replacement therapy, onset of persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 15 ml min −1 1.73 m − 2 , persistent ≥50% reduction in eGFR or onset of persistent macroalbuminuria) was lower with semaglutide (1.8%) versus placebo (2.2%): hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63, 0.96; P = 0.02. The treatment benefit at 104 weeks for eGFR was 0.75 ml min −1 1.73 m − 2 (95% CI 0.43, 1.06; P < 0.001) overall and 2.19 ml min −1 1.73 m − 2 (95% CI 1.00, 3.38; P < 0.001) in patients with baseline eGFR <60 ml min −1 1.73 m − 2 . These results suggest a benefit of semaglutide on kidney outcomes in individuals with overweight/obesity, without diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574597 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".