TirzTom said:The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
One concrete data point for the thread. Worth knowing that the injection site changes very little. Abdomen, thigh and upper arm are bioequivalent for semaglutide, so a site change is not a plausible explanation for a bad week.
BethLabQueen said:The trial means are being read too generously in this thread.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The liver data is among the strongest non-weight findings in the class. The semaglutide MASH programme reported a large advantage over placebo on MASH resolution, with a substantial minority also achieving fibrosis improvement — and fibrosis is the endpoint that predicts outcomes. Mechanistically it is reduced hepatic lipogenesis, increased fatty-acid oxidation, less hepatic inflammation, and possibly a direct effect on stellate-cell activation.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Whether normalised enzymes tell you anything about fibrosis, and what the right follow-up measurement is?
Reporting back.
Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.