Strategies for minimizing muscle loss during use of incretin‐mimetic drugs for treatment of obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid and widespread clinical adoption of highly effective incretin-mimetic drugs (IMDs), particularly semaglutide and tirzepatide, for the treatment of obesity has outpaced the updating of clinical practice guidelines. Consequently, many patients may be at risk for adverse effects and uncertain long-term outcomes related to the use of these drugs. Of emerging concern is the loss of skeletal muscle mass and function that can accompany rapid substantial weight reduction; such losses can lead to reduced functional and metabolic health, weight cycling, compromised quality of life, and other adverse outcomes. Available evidence suggests that clinical trial participants receiving IMDs for the treatment of obesity lost 10% or more of their muscle mass during the 68- to 72-week interventions, approximately equivalent to 20 years of age-related muscle loss. The ability to maintain muscle mass during caloric restriction-induced weight reduction is influenced by two key factors: nutrition and physical exercise. Nutrition therapy should ensure adequate intake and absorption of high-quality protein and micronutrients, which may require the use of oral nutritional supplements. Additionally, concurrent physical activity, especially resistance training, has been shown to effectively minimize loss of muscle mass and function during weight reduction therapy. All patients receiving IMDs for obesity should participate in comprehensive treatment programs emphasizing adequate protein and micronutrient intakes, as well as resistance training, to preserve muscle mass and function, maximize the benefit of IMD therapy, and minimize potential risks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".