MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Semaglutide: First Global Approval

2018· other· en· W6939716459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemaglutideDrug approvalLegislatureType 2 diabetesAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding: The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding. Conflicts of interest: During the peer review process the manufacturer of the agent under review was offered an opportunity to comment on the article. Changes resulting from any comments received were made by the authors on the basis of scientific completeness and accuracy. Sohita Dhillon is a salaried employee of Adis/Springer, is responsible for the article content and declares no relevant conflicts of interest Additional information about this Adis Drug Review can be found here. Abstract Novo Nordisk has developed a subcutaneous formulation of semaglutide (Ozempic®), a modified human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It has been developed using Novo Nordisk's proprietary protein-acylation technology, and is administered using an injection device. Semaglutide lowers blood glucose by stimulating the release of insulin and also lowers body weight. Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide has recently been approved in the US, Puerto Rico and Canada, and has received a positive opinion in the EU for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. It will be launched as the Ozempic® Pen, a pre-filled device. Semaglutide is also under regulatory review in Japan and Switzerland for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Clinical development for obesity, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is underway worldwide. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of semaglutide leading to this first approval for type 2 diabetes. Access to the full article can be found here. © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2720.165

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→