Orforglipron for Maintenance of Body Weight Reduction
Peer-reviewed randomized trial; Nature Medicine 2026, 2026 · paper · Clinical trials
A double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b trial of once-daily oral orforglipron in 376 people previously treated with tirzepatide or semaglutide. Orforglipron kept more of the earlier weight reduction at 52 weeks than placebo; side effects were mostly mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal.
Checked: PDF from nature.com, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
8 findings
Substance Cohort 2 orforglipron arm (N=105), constipation: Table 2 (before-rescue safety set) prints "15 (14.3)" but Extended Data Table 1 ("safety analysis set") prints "14 (13.3)"; the broader set has fewer participants with the event.
- p. 6 Table 2, cohort 2, Constipation, Orforglipron N=105
15 (14.3)
- p. 6 Extended Data Table 1, cohort 2, Constipation, Orforglipron N=105
14 (13.3)
- p. 3 Extended Data Table 1, cohort 2 orforglipron nausea
18 (17.1)
- p. 20 Extended Data Table 1, cohort 1 orforglipron any AE
86 (69.4)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 2 (p6) and Extended Data Table 1 (p20; the cluster's page 6 and page 3 locations for ED Table 1 are wrong, the table is on PDF page 20). Both cells are printed as quoted. Same reasoning as C016 but a different cell, so not a duplicate: by the Methods definitions (p11) the before-rescue data for the orforglipron arm are a subset of the SAS-OFG data, so the count cannot fall. The wider claim in one reviewer note, that all differences between the two tables are unexplained, is not upheld: the increases (cohort 2 any AE 65 to 69, nausea 14 to 18, vomiting 5 to 6; cohort 1 any AE 85 to 86, diarrhea 9 to 12, vomiting 14 to 15, abdominal distension 7 to 9, GI discontinuations 3 to 4) are consistent with the two analysis sets defined in Methods. Only the decreases (this cell and cohort 1 nausea, C016) are anomalous. ED Table 1's title says only "safety analysis set" and does not name SAS-OFG, which adds to the confusion.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Results, cohort 1: "percent change from SURMOUNT-5 baseline body weight of –16.5% (s.e.m. 0.90) with orforglipron and 12.6% (s.e.m. 0.91) with placebo with an ETD relative to placebo of –3.9 percentage points": the placebo value lacks its minus sign and should read –12.6%.
- p. 4 Results, cohort 1, key secondary endpoint (percent change from SURMOUNT-5 baseline)
and 12.6% (s.e.m. 0.91) with placebo with an ETD relative to placebo of –3.9 percentage points
- p. 4 Cohort 1 results, all participants
and 12.6% (s.e.m. 0.91) with placebo
- p. 4 Results, cohort 1
of –16.5% (s.e.m. 0.90) with orforglipron and 12.6% with placebo
Judge's note: Read the sentence in the crop and on the page 4 image. The orforglipron value and the treatment difference carry minus signs; '12.6%' does not, so this is not an extraction loss. A difference of –3.9 requires the placebo change to be –12.6. The parallel cohort 2 sentence on page 5 prints both values with minus signs (–14.9% and –7.9%). As printed the sentence says the placebo group ended 12.6% above its starting weight.
Second check: another model agreed · checked by hand
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Discussion: "Participants treated with orforglipron demonstrated average reductions in body weight from week 0 to 52 in ATTAIN-MAINTAIN of approximately 5 kg (5%) in cohort 1 and 1 kg (1%) in cohort 2"; the Results and Figs. 2c/3c show body weight increasing over that period (90.9 to 95.9 kg; 95.0 to 95.9 kg).
- p. 7 Discussion, first paragraph
demonstrated average reductions in body weight from week 0 to 52 in ATTAIN-MAINTAIN of approximately 5 kg (5%) in cohort 1 and 1 kg (1%) in cohort 2
- p. 4 Results, cohort 1 sensitivity analyses; Fig. 2c
baseline body weight of 90.9 kg (s.e.m. 2.12)
- p. 4 Results, cohort 1 sensitivity analyses; Fig. 2c
95.9 kg (s.e.m. 0.91) with orforglipron
- p. 4 Results, cohort 1 sensitivity analysis; Fig. 2c
had a baseline body weight of 90.9 kg (s.e.m. 2.12)
Judge's note: Viewed p7 (Discussion), p4 (cohort 1 text and Fig. 2) and p5 (cohort 2 text and Fig. 3). Cohort 1: baseline 90.9 kg, week 52 MBE 95.9 kg; reduction from SURMOUNT-5 baseline 21.5% to 16.8%. Cohort 2: 95.0 kg to 95.9 kg; 16.5% to 15.1%. The Results call these a "difference" of about 5 kg / 1 kg. The 5 kg and 1 kg are regain, so "reductions in body weight from week 0 to 52" states the wrong direction. The reduction from SURMOUNT-5 baseline is 19.6 kg and 17.1 kg, so that reading does not fit either.
Second check: another model agreed · checked by hand
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Cohort 1 orforglipron arm (N=124), nausea: Table 2 (before-rescue safety set) prints "29 (23.4)" but Extended Data Table 1 ("safety analysis set") prints "28 (22.6)"; the broader set has fewer participants with the event.
- p. 6 Table 2, cohort 1, Nausea, Orforglipron N=124
29 (23.4)
- p. 20 Extended Data Table 1, cohort 1, Nausea, Orforglipron N=124
28 (22.6)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed Table 2 (p6) and Extended Data Table 1 (p20). Both cells are printed as quoted and each percentage matches its count. Methods (p11) define SAS-Before Rescue (data after rescue excluded) and SAS-OFG (all data after first orforglipron dose for those randomized to orforglipron; post-rescue data for placebo). ED Table 1's placebo Ns of 39 and 42 equal the numbers who received rescue orforglipron, so it is the SAS-OFG set. For the orforglipron arm the before-rescue data are a subset of the SAS-OFG data, so a count can stay equal or rise but not fall. The other cohort 1 rows behave that way (constipation 15/15, diarrhea 9/12, vomiting 14/15, abdominal distension 7/9, any AE 85/86); nausea alone falls 29 to 28. No footnote or methods text explains it. Only the authors can say which value is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Discussion: "fewer than 5% of participants experiencing gastrointestinal AEs ... in both cohort 1 and cohort 2 during the first 4 weeks of the trial"; Results (Safety): "The overall incidence of GI AEs including nausea, vomiting or diarrhea in the first 4 weeks of the trial for both cohorts was 10.5% and 9.5% in the tirzepatide and semaglutide cohorts, respectively."
- p. 8 Discussion, paragraph on transition dose
fewer than 5% of participants experiencing gastrointestinal AEs
- p. 7 Results, Safety
in the first 4 weeks of the trial for both cohorts was 10.5% and 9.5% in the tirzepatide and semaglutide cohorts, respectively
- p. 8 Discussion, paragraph on 12 mg starting dose
fewer than 5% of participants experiencing gastrointestinal AEs and no participants requiring a dose de-escalation in both cohort 1 and cohort 2 during the first 4 weeks of the trial
- p. 7 Results, Safety
in the first 4 weeks of the trial for both cohorts was 10.5% and 9.5% in the
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed p7 (Safety), p8 (Discussion) and Extended Data Fig. 5 (p18). Both sentences are printed as quoted and describe the same events over the same 4-week window. ED Fig. 5 plots incidence per time point, with every bar under 5%, so the Discussion figure may be the per-time-point peak and the Results figure the cumulative 4-week incidence, but neither sentence says so and no text reconciles them. As written, the Discussion understates the early GI AE rate by about half. The authors need to say which quantity the Discussion means.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Methods: "During SURMOUNT-5, participants were randomized to either tirzepatide MTD (10 mg or 15 mg) or semaglutide MTD (1.7 mg or 2.4 mg) with a total weight-loss period of 72 weeks1" cites reference 1 (AACE consensus statement) where reference 12 (the SURMOUNT-5 report) is meant.
- p. 10 Methods, Study design, second paragraph
with a total weight-loss period of 72 weeks1
- p. 8 Reference list, ref. 1
Nadolsky, K. et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement
- p. 9 Reference list, ref. 12
Aronne, L. J. et al. Tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity.
- p. 8 Reference 1
American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of adults with obesity/adiposity-based chronic disease
Judge's note: Viewed the crops and pages 8-10. The superscript on p10 is a single "1"; the sentence immediately before reads "SURMOUNT-5 trial12". Reference 1 is "Nadolsky, K. et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of adults with obesity/adiposity-based chronic disease"; reference 12 is "Aronne, L. J. et al. Tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity. N. Engl. J. Med. 393, 26-36 (2025)". Everything needed is in the reference list; the "2" was evidently dropped.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Results: "ATTAIN-MAINTAIN screened 400 and enrolled 376 participants between 13 September 2024 and 21 November 2025" gives as the screening and enrolment window what the Reporting Summary calls the data-collection period: "Data was collected between 13 September 2024 (first participant visit) to 21 November 2025 (last participant visit)".
- p. 2 Results, first paragraph
screened 400 and enrolled 376 participants between 13 September 2024 and 21 November 2025
- p. 1 Article dates
Received: 12 February 2026
- p. 2 Results first paragraph
enrolled 376 participants between 13 September 2024 and 21 November 2025
- p. 10 Methods, Study design
52-week treatment period and a 2-week safety follow-up
Judge's note: Read the Results sentence on the page 2 image, the dates on page 1 (received 12 February 2026) and the Reporting Summary on the page 25 image. The Methods give a 52-week treatment period plus a 2-week safety follow-up, and the article reports week-52 results, so enrolment cannot have run until 21 November 2025. The window is 434 days (62 weeks), which fits first visit to last visit for a trial of up to 56 weeks per participant. The Reporting Summary gives the correct description; the article sentence misdescribes the dates.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Introduction: orforglipron is "currently under investigation for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes" and "if approved, can be globally scalable", while Results and Methods say the tablet doses "are approved in the USA13".
- p. 2 Introduction, second paragraph
currently under investigation for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes
- p. 2 Introduction, second paragraph
if approved, can be globally scalable
- p. 2 Results, first paragraph
tablet doses of 0.8, 2.5, 5.5, 9, 14.5 and 17.2 mg, respectively, which are approved in the USA13
- p. 10 Methods, Randomization and blinding
which are approved in the USA13
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read all three passages on the page 2 image and the Methods text on page 10. The Introduction describes the drug as investigational and not yet approved; Results and Methods state that the equivalent tablet doses are approved in the USA. The regulatory status is stated inconsistently within the article. 'If approved' may refer to approvals outside the USA and the capsule formulation is called investigational, but 'currently under investigation for the treatment of obesity' is not qualified that way. Only the authors can say which wording is current.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
19 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label Extended Data Table 1 is titled "Adverse events (safety analysis set)" with "Placebo N=39" / "Total N=163" (cohort 1) and "Placebo N=42" / "Total N=147" (cohort 2), whereas Table 2, Extended Data Tables 2-3 and Extended Data Fig. 5 give placebo N=80 and N=66; the table does not say which safety set it reports.
- p. 20 Extended Data Table 1 header, cohort 1
Placebo N=39
- p. 20 Extended Data Table 1 header, cohort 2
Placebo N=42
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5, cohort 1 panel
PBO (N=80)
- p. 6 Extended Data Table 2 header
Placebo N=80
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed pages 20, 6, 18, 21 and 22. ED Table 1 headers are N=124/39/163 and N=105/42/147. Table 2 ("before rescue safety set") has 124/80/204 and 105/66/171. The Methods (page 10) define two sets: SAS-Before Rescue and "Safety Analysis Set Orforglipron (SAS-OFG)", the latter including data after initiation of rescue orforglipron for placebo participants. The Results (page 7) say 39 and 42 placebo participants received rescue orforglipron. So the table is almost certainly the SAS-OFG set and the numbers are not wrong, but neither the title nor the footnote names the set, and the main text cites the table only as "additional safety data". A labelling gap, not a data error; authors should confirm and label the population.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Limitations: "the study includes a more representative US population with a higher Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino population"; Table 1 reports race only, with no Hispanic or Latino row, and no comparator is named for "higher".
- p. 8 Discussion, limitations paragraph
with a higher Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino population
- p. 3 Table 1, Race rows and footnote a
Race or ethnicity was reported by the participants
Judge's note: Viewed p8 (Discussion) and Table 1 (p3). Table 1 lists American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, White and Multiple; footnote a says "Race or ethnicity was reported by the participants" but no ethnicity data appear. The reporting summary (p24) says race/ethnicity data are "presented in Table 1". A text search finds no other mention of Hispanic or Latino. The claim cannot be checked against anything in the article; ethnicity may be in the supplement, which is not in the files.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Abstract: "difference of MBE 25.5% (95% confidence interval 14.5 to 36.5); P < 0.001; treatment-regimen estimand) at week 52" and "difference of MBE 41.7 (95% confidence interval 24.4 to 59.0); P < 0.001; treatment-regimen estimand) at week 52": each has one opening and two closing parentheses, and the cohort 2 difference (41.7) has no % sign where the cohort 1 difference (25.5%) has one.
- p. 1 Abstract, cohort 1 result
difference of MBE 25.5% (95% confidence interval 14.5 to 36.5); P < 0.001; treatment-regimen estimand)
- p. 1 Abstract, cohort 2 result
estimated treatment difference of MBE 41.7 (95% confidence interval 24.4 to 59.0); P < 0.001; treatment-regimen estimand)
- p. 1 Abstract
(95% confidence interval 14.5 to 36.5); P < 0.001; treatment-regimen estimand)
Judge's note: Read the abstract on the page 1 image and the crop. Both sentences close a parenthesis after the interval and again after 'estimand' with only one opened. '25.5%' carries a unit and '41.7' does not. Cosmetic; the numbers themselves agree with the Results.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Results, cohort 1: "25.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5 to 36.5); P < 0.001) at week 52" has a surplus closing parenthesis after the P value.
- p. 3 Results, cohort 1 primary endpoint
(95% confidence interval (CI) 14.5 to 36.5); P < 0.001) at week 52
Judge's note: The page 3 text reads as quoted: the parenthesis opened before '95%' is closed after '36.5', and a second ')' follows 'P < 0.001' with nothing left open. The same construction appears in the abstract (C001) and in the cohort 2 result on page 5 (C013); this is a separate location. Checked against the text layer only, which is reliable for parentheses here because the same pattern is visible in the abstract image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. 2 legend: "for cohort 1 (tirzepatide (TZP) to randomized control trial)" and Fig. 3 legend: "for cohort 2 (semaglutide (SEMA) to randomized control trial)": 'randomized control trial' for 'randomized controlled trial', used as an unexplained label for the cohort.
- p. 4 Fig. 2 legend
tirzepatide (TZP) to randomized control trial
- p. 5 Fig. 3 legend
semaglutide (SEMA) to randomized control trial
Judge's note: Read both legends on the page 4 and page 5 images. The wording is as quoted. The Extended Data Fig. 3 and 4 titles use the same shorthand ('Tirzepatide to RCT', 'Semaglutide to RCT'), so it is a deliberate label for the cohort moving from the injectable into this trial, not a garbled phrase. What remains is 'control' for 'controlled' and an awkward label; cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Results, cohort 2: "–14.9% (s.e.m. 0.94) with orforglipron and –7.9% (SE 0.81) with placebo": 'SE' is used once where the article otherwise uses 's.e.m.'.
- p. 5 Results, cohort 2, percent change from SURMOUNT-5 baseline
–7.9% (SE 0.81) with placebo
Judge's note: Read the sentence on the page 5 image. 'SE' appears in the same sentence as 's.e.m. 0.94' and is the only such label in the main text; the parallel cohort 1 sentence on page 4 uses 's.e.m.' for both values. Same quantity, inconsistent label.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Results, cohort 2: "with an ETD relative to placebo of 41.7 (95% CI 24.4 to 59.0); P < 0.001) at week 52" has a surplus closing parenthesis after the P value.
- p. 5 Cohort 2 results
(95% CI 24.4 to 59.0); P < 0.001) at week 52
Judge's note: Read the sentence at the top of the text on the page 5 image. The parenthesis is closed after '59.0' and a second ')' follows 'P < 0.001'. Same construction as the abstract (C001) and the cohort 1 result (C007), at a separate location. The value 41.7 also has no unit here, where the cohort 1 sentence prints 25.5%.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Results, cohort 2: "had a mean baseline A1c of 5.6% ... the A1c improved to a mean of 5.2% ... the mean A1c remained at 5.2%" uses 'A1c' where the parallel cohort 1 paragraph, Table 1 and its footnote use 'HbA1c'.
- p. 5 Cohort 2 cardiometabolic paragraph
had a mean baseline A1c of 5.6%
Judge's note: Read the cohort 2 paragraph on the page 5 image and the cohort 1 paragraph on the page 4 image. The two paragraphs are otherwise worded identically; cohort 1 says 'HbA1c' three times and cohort 2 says 'A1c' three times. 'A1c' is not defined. Both terms mean the same thing, so this is a consistency point only.
Second check: none (judge only) · checked by hand
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Safety: "one participant each in the orforglipron and placebo group in cohort 2"; two arms are named, so "groups" is expected.
- p. 7 Safety
in the orforglipron and placebo group in cohort 2
Judge's note: Viewed p7. The text is printed as quoted. A small number-agreement slip; the meaning is clear and elliptical singular is tolerable, so observation only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Discussion: "The use of rescue orforglipron in this trial was a, patient-centric approach"; stray comma after "a".
- p. 8 Discussion, rescue therapy paragraph
trial was a, patient-centric approach
- p. 8 Discussion, rescue therapy paragraph
trial was a, patient-centric approach intended to mitigate
- p. 8 Discussion, rescue paragraph
was a, patient-centric approach
- p. 8
The use of rescue orforglipron in this trial was a, patient-centric approach
Judge's note: Viewed the crop and p8. The comma is printed in the page image, not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 4 gives the author as "Group AfHiDS.", a garbled group-author name treated as surname plus initials.
- p. 8 Reference list, ref. 4
Group AfHiDS. Association of weight loss maintenance and weight regain on 4-year changes in CVD risk factors
- p. 8 Reference 4
Group AfHiDS. Association of weight loss maintenance
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the correct author is the Look AHEAD Research Group. Viewed the crop and p8: "Group AfHiDS." is printed. The entry's own title ends "the action for health in diabetes (Look AHEAD) clinical trial", which shows the initials stand for Action for Health in Diabetes Study and that a group name was mangled by reference software. The garbling is evident from the page; the exact correct author string cannot be verified from the files.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reporting summary, Sample size: "using a 2-group t-test with a 5% 2-sided significant level" should read "significance level" (the Methods have "two-sided significance level").
- p. 24 Sample size
For each treatment group in the SURMOUNT-5 study, a sample size of 150 participants
- p. 24 Sample size
5% 2-sided significant level
- p. 24 Reporting summary, Sample size
achieved during the 72 weeks of treatment in SURMOUNT-5
- p. 10 Methods, Sample size
a sample size of 150 participants was required for each cohort
Judge's note: Viewed the page 24 image and read the Methods sample-size paragraph on page 10 (text layer). Only the wording slip "significant level" is a defect. The main claim, that the calculation is attributed to the wrong trial, is a misreading: "For each treatment group in the SURMOUNT-5 study" refers to the tirzepatide and semaglutide groups of SURMOUNT-5, which are exactly the two cohorts of this trial, and the sentence goes on to give the 3:2 orforglipron:placebo split within each. That matches the Methods' "150 participants was required for each cohort". The numbers agree (150, 118, 90% power, 10% difference, 20% discontinuation, SD 14%).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Competing interests (B.H.): "Astra Zeneca" (split across a line with no hyphen), whereas the same section prints "AstraZeneca" four times.
- p. 11 Competing interests, B.H.
Astra Zeneca
Judge's note: Viewed p11. The name breaks after "Astra" at a line end with no hyphen and "Zeneca" starts the next line, which in this typesetting indicates a space in the source. Because it falls on a line break, an unhyphenated break of the single word cannot be fully excluded. Trivial inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Statistical methods: "For the primary and key secondary end points"; the article writes "endpoints" as one word everywhere else.
- p. 11 Statistical methods
primary and key secondary end points
Judge's note: Viewed p11: "end points" is printed as two words on one line. A text search finds "endpoint(s)" as one word at every other occurrence in the article. Style inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Figs. 3B and 4B y-axis label reads "Systolic Bllod Pressure (mmHg)"; should be "Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)".
- p. 14 Extended Data Fig. 3, panel B, y-axis
Systolic Bllod Pressure (mmHg)
- p. 16 Extended Data Fig. 4, panel B, y-axis
Systolic Bllod Pressure (mmHg)
- p. 14 Extended Data Fig. 3c, x-axis label
Hb1Ac
- p. 14 Extended Data Fig. 3B y-axis
Systolic Blod Pressure (mmHg)
Judge's note: Viewed both page images and enlarged the panel B/C region of each. The y-axis label of panel B is printed "Systolic Bllod Pressure (mmHg)" in both figures (spelling is "Bllod", not "Blod" as two reviewer notes quoted). The "Hb1Ac" label that one note also mentions is handled in C033.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Figs. 3C and 4C x-axis category label reads "Hb1Ac" while the y-axis of the same panel reads "HbA1c (%)"; should be "HbA1c".
- p. 14 Extended Data Fig. 3, panel C, x-axis label
Hb1Ac
- p. 16 Extended Data Fig. 4, panel C, x-axis label
Hb1Ac
Judge's note: Viewed both page images (and an enlargement of panel C on page 14). The label under the bars is "Hb1Ac" in both figures; the y-axis beside it and the captions use "HbA1c".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 4 caption defines "ATN-MTN = ATTAIN-MAINTAIN", but the figure legend uses "ATN-MNTN Baseline" / "ATN-MNTN Week 52" (and the Extended Data Fig. 3 caption defines "ATN-MNTN").
- p. 17 Extended Data Fig. 4 caption, abbreviations
ATN-MTN = ATTAIN-MAINTAIN
- p. 16 Extended Data Fig. 4, legend
ATN-MNTN Baseline
- p. 15 Ext Data Fig. 3 legend
ATN-MNTN = ATTAIN-MAINTAIN
Judge's note: Viewed the page 17 caption image: it prints "SM-5 = SURMOUNT-5; ATN-MTN = ATTAIN-MAINTAIN". The page 16 figure legend prints "ATN-MNTN Baseline" and "ATN-MNTN Week 52". The Extended Data Fig. 3 caption (page 15, text layer) has "ATN-MNTN = ATTAIN-MAINTAIN". The abbreviation defined in the Fig. 4 caption is missing an N.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 5 caption ends "constipation includes preferred terms of constipation, infrequent bowel movements, and feces hard", but the figure, its title and its panel headers ("Incidence and Severity of Nausea, Vomiting, and Diarrhea") cover only nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5 caption
constipation includes preferred terms of constipation, infrequent bowel movements, and feces hard
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5, panel headers
Incidence and Severity of Nausea, Vomiting, and Diarrhea
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5 caption
constipation includes preferred terms of constipation, infrequent bowel movements,
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5 caption
constipation includes preferred terms of constipation, infrequent bowel movements
Judge's note: Viewed the page 18 image. Both cohort panels are headed "Incidence and Severity of Nausea, Vomiting, and Diarrhea"; the caption title and first sentence name only those three events. The caption nevertheless defines a constipation grouping that is not plotted. Leftover caption text; no plotted data are affected. The side remark that the figure shows proportions without counts is not a defect.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Extended Data Fig. 5 title: "Incidence of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, over time." (missing "and" and a stray comma before "over time"); the same construction recurs in the first caption sentence, "treatment-emergent nausea, vomiting, diarrhea."
- p. 18 Extended Data Fig. 5 title
Incidence of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, over time.
Judge's note: Viewed the page 18 image. The title is printed as quoted, with a comma after "diarrhea" and no conjunction. Punctuation only. The constipation point is a separate defect, covered in C036.
Second check: none (judge only)