MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416880272 · doi:10.1681/asn.2025m7ss8e68

Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Modelling with Semaglutide in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

2025· article· en· W4416880272 on OpenAlexaff
Massimo Nardone, Melissa‐Rosina Pasqua, Michael A. Tsoukas, Luxcia Kugathasan, Vikas S. Sridhar, Marcel H.A. Muskiet, David Z.I. Cherney, Ahmad Haidar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusKidney diseaseType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, improves glycemia, lowers body weight, and reduces cardiovascular (CV) events in people with type 2 diabetes. In type 1 diabetes (T1D), semaglutide also reduces hyperglycemia and body weight, but its impact on CV outcomes remains unknown. Because no CV outcome trials exist in this population, validated risk prediction models can provide insights into potential CV effects. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effect of semaglutide on estimated 10-year CV risk in people with T1D, hypothesizing that semaglutide would lower predicted risk. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial (NCT05205928), evaluating weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (titrated up to 1.0mg weekly for 15 weeks) with automated insulin delivery in adults with T1D. Medical history, demographic, and biochemical data from 22 participants (46±13 yrs, 32.5±5.4 kg/m2, 54% female) were used to estimate the 10-year risk of a first fatal and non-fatal CV event using two validated models: the Steno T1 Risk Engine (ST1RE) and the Scottish Diabetes Research Network (SDRN) risk model. Risk was calculated at baseline and after 15 weeks of treatment with semaglutide or placebo. The percentage change in CV risk from baseline for each intervention was assessed using a paired sample t-test. Results: Median baseline 10-year CV risk was ~12% (SRE: 12.4% [8.5, 20.8], SDRN: 11.5% [4.3, 18.5]). Using the ST1RE model, the median change in CV risk from baseline was -17.0% [-23.2, -6.5] and -5.1% [-20.0, -1.3] for semaglutide and placebo, respectively (placebo-adjusted difference [PAD]: -4.1% [-9.5, -1.4]; P=0.07). Using the SDRN model, the median change in CV risk from baseline was -10.7% [-25.3, -0.8] and -9.5% [-20.5, -2.9], respectively (PAD: 0.4% [-7.6, 6.8]; P=0.78). Conclusion: Semaglutide did not significantly reduce estimated 10-year CV risk in people with T1D and a low-to-moderate baseline risk. However, the reductions observed suggest a trend toward benefit, although the two prediction models yielded differences in effect magnitude. Analyses in larger datasets would help clarify the potential impact of semaglutide on CV risk in T1D.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207