On the subject in the title: Journal club: the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper Working notes rather than a conclusion.
A follow-up question about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
Building on post #2 rather than restating it.
Session format: read the paper before posting. The discussion is much better when everyone has. Start with the estimand and population, then methods, then results, then limitations. That order makes critique coherent.
Post #4 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
STEP 1 (N Engl J Med 2021): The pivotal obesity trial for semaglutide and the reference point for most subsequent comparison. Mean weight reduction was substantially larger than anything previously achieved pharmacologically.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
The most useful reply I ever got about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Counterpoint on retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
Post #6 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
On retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Adding the measurement that post #11 says would settle it.
SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation.
Where I part company with post #11, and it is a narrow parting.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. Described a research-use-only compound as approved for human use after a correction earlier in this topic (R4).
Retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
What would change my mind on retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
I had written a reply contradicting post #15 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The summary that goes to the digest should say what the paper establishes, what it does not, and one thing the group could not settle. Three paragraphs, no more.
Confirming post #15 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Post #19 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The thing about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
I read post #18 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Two people in this thread mean different things by retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
TRIUMPH (ongoing): Retatrutide phase 3. No results yet. Nothing should be attributed to it because it has not finished. When it does, this discussion will return to it.
Somebody should be asked to argue the paper's case even if nobody in the room believes it. Sessions where everyone agrees produce a summary nobody can use.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
Post #24 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
I have been on both sides of the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it…
|
+54 | 62 | 1.5k | 26d |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Working notes on STEP 1 rather than a conclusion. I would rather…
|
+118 | 132 | 12k | 15mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…
|
3 | 11k | 9h | |
|
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I…
|
+80 | 91 | 10k | 11mo |
|
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about STEP 4 that I actually want…
|
+81 | 90 | 54k | 9mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how this site should cite something…
|
+109 | 116 | 36k | 2d |
|
Preprint servers and what screening they do
Preprint servers and what screening they do — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The manuscript is on a…
|
+95 | 106 | 5.6k | 4mo |
|
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on claim built, and I…
|
+71 | 80 | 1.1k | 14mo |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Comparators chosen for…
|
+82 | 87 | 1.1k | 12mo |
|
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of c-cell question…
|
+61 | 65 | 1.3k | 22mo |