Safety profile of semaglutide versus placebo in the <scp>SELECT</scp> study: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess safety of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg versus placebo, beyond reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, in patients with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity. METHODS: Safety data focused on serious adverse events (SAEs), all adverse events (AEs) leading to permanent treatment discontinuation irrespective of seriousness, and prespecified AEs of special interest irrespective of seriousness. Tests of treatment differences were determined by two-sided p values. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with SAEs was lower with semaglutide versus placebo (33.4% vs. 36.4%; p < 0.001), primarily driven by cardiac disorders (11.5% vs. 13.5%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with AEs leading to discontinuation was higher with semaglutide versus placebo (16.6% vs. 8.2%; p < 0.001), a difference driven by gastrointestinal disorders (10.0% vs. 2.0%); however, proportions due to SAEs leading to discontinuation were similar (3.6% vs. 4.1%). Suicide/self-injury SAEs were low and balanced between groups (0.11% in both groups). Gallbladder-related disorders were more frequent with semaglutide versus placebo (2.8% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.04), mainly driven by cholelithiasis (1.4% vs. 1.1%), whereas proportions of cholecystitis were similar between groups (0.6% vs. 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term safety profile observed in the Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) study is consistent with previously reported semaglutide studies. No new safety concerns were identified for once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".