MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ocular Adverse Events With Semaglutide

2025· review· en· W4413139441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Ophthalmology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSemaglutideMeta-analysisAdverse effectSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Semaglutide is a widely used treatment for diabetes and obesity, offering considerable cardiovascular benefit. However, its association with ocular adverse events remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the incidence of eye disorders, diabetic retinopathy, and nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in adults treated with semaglutide. Data Sources: A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted on April 10, 2025, without date restrictions. Study Selection: Investigators independently screened records to identify randomized clinical trials comparing semaglutide with either an active comparator or placebo in adults, assessing ocular adverse events. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Descriptive synthesis of the included studies was performed. The random-effects model using the inverse variance method was used to summarize the odds ratio (OR) for eye disorders and diabetic retinopathy. Peto OR with a fixed-effects model was applied for NAION. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2.0 tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to determine whether the available data were sufficient for definitive conclusions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes included the number of patients experiencing an ocular adverse event, diabetic retinopathy, or NAION. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on follow-up duration, comparator type, and primary baseline condition. Results: A total of 78 trials with 73 640 participants were included. Semaglutide did not increase or reduce the risk of eye disorders (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12) or diabetic retinopathy (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17). Treatment with semaglutide was associated with a significant odds of NAION (OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.02-15.02). Overall risk of bias was low. TSA provided evidence that the sample size was sufficient to avoid missing alternative results for diabetic retinopathy but not for NAION. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk of eye disorders or diabetic retinopathy. Despite the fact that an association between semaglutide treatment and NAION was found, current evidence remains insufficient to establish definitive conclusions regarding its association with NAION. Further studies with larger sample sizes and adequate evaluation of NAION are warranted to clarify this potential risk.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it