A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of weight loss using liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight recurrence after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery, such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) remains the gold standard for treating obesity. Most people regain weight from postsurgery nadir. OBJECTIVES: Liraglutide 3.0 mg is approved for weight management. This study will examine the effects on liraglutide 3.0 mg on weight regain post-RYGB. SETTING: University Hospital, United States. METHODS: A 56-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in 132 subjects, who achieved ≥25% total body weight loss (TBWL) status-post-RYGB and regained ≥10% TBWL after reaching nadir weight (NW). Subjects 18-120 months post-RYGB were randomized to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg/d (n = 89) or placebo (n = 43) with lifestyle counseling regularly for 56 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of subjects losing at least 5%, 10%, and 15% TBWL and achieving weight lower than their NW. RESULTS: 53.4% of the placebo group and 65% of the liraglutide group completed the trial due to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. The change in %TBWL from baseline to 56-weeks was -8.8 (8.5, -29.2 to 9.7) and 1.1 (3.5, -7.9 to 5.99) in the liraglutide and placebo groups, respectively. 76% and 17% of subjects achieved ≥5% TBWL at 56 weeks in the liraglutide and placebo groups, respectively; 51% and 26.0% of the liraglutide group achieved ≥10% and ≥15% TBWL, respectively. None of the placebo group lost ≥10% TBWL. Twenty-one percent of subjects receiving liraglutide surpassed postoperative NW. No subjects on placebo met this goal. Nonserious adverse events occurred in 41.6% of subjects on liraglutide. Serious adverse events (SAE) occurred less often on liraglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was significantly more effective than placebo in treating weight regain that occurs post-RYGB without increased SAE.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".