{"effect":{"id":"emotional_blunting","name":"Emotional blunting / Reduced pleasure","severity":"moderate","description":"Reduced emotional response to pleasurable experiences — not just food, but also hobbies, social activities, or intimacy. GLP-1 receptors in the brain's reward pathway may dampen dopamine-mediated pleasure. Not well-studied in clinical trials.","clinicalRates":null,"clinicalRatesWithdrawn":true,"clinicalRatesNote":"A fixed reference table dated 2026-04-12, not derived from this corpus and carrying no per-effect citation of its own — see `sources` on ?q=effect&id=<id> for what was recorded behind each effect. It reaches published numbers two ways. (1) As the sole clinical base for an effect with no eligible corpus rate point — exactly the effects whose pooled corpus estimate is null (corpusClinical here, rateBase.clinical.pooledEstimate on the per-effect endpoint); the predictor marks these isFallback: true. (2) Since 2026-08-28, as a dose-tier rescale ratio applied to the corpus's OWN pooled rate wherever that tier's pooled clinical records are mostly dose-untagged; isFallback stays false in that case, and the predictor's clinical.basis states both endpoints and the dose-tag denominator while clinical.pooledPercentage carries the corpus rate before any adjustment. Full per-source detail: rateBase.clinical via ?q=effect&id=<id>. WITHDRAWN 2026-09-03 (decision literature-fallback-clinical-rate-2026-08-28, option c) for emotional_blunting only: this table had no rate-stating source at all for it, so its clinicalRate fields are null here and its predictor track carries `available: false` with no percentage — see clinicalRatesWithdrawn on ?q=effect&id=emotional_blunting. RE-SOURCED 2026-09-03 (same decision, option b) for fatigue only: its three tier values are one figure, 0.11, from the FDA Wegovy prescribing information revised 06/2026 (Table 3: fatigue incl. asthenia 11% on 2.4 mg, N=2,116, vs 5% placebo, N=1,261; URL in its sources) — the label reports no per-dose-tier rate, so no gradient is published for it, and it is a semaglutide figure applied at every dose tier regardless of molecule, as this whole table is. RE-SOURCED 2026-09-04 (decision pancreatitis-hairloss-dizziness-triple-derivation-2026-09-03) for hair_loss, dizziness and pancreatitis: their 2026-04-12 triples (1–3%, 2–5%, 0.5–1.2%) had no recorded derivation and their cited trial pages state no such figures; each is now one value at every tier from the same FDA Wegovy label — hair_loss 0.03 (Table 3: 3% on 2.4 mg, N=2,116, vs 1% placebo), dizziness 0.08 (Table 3: 8% vs 4%), and pancreatitis 0.002, which is NOT a proportion of patients like every other value in this table but the label's incidence RATE of 0.2 acute-pancreatitis cases per 100 patient-years of Wegovy exposure (4 adjudicated cases vs 1 on placebo, section 6.1 Adverse Reactions, under Other Adverse Reactions in Adults and/or Pediatric Patients; the section 5.2 warning of the same name states no figure) — read it with that unit. Figures served before 2026-09-04 for these three effects should not be cited.","confidenceNote":"`sourceDiversity` (formerly `confidence`, kept as a deprecated alias with the same value) measures SOURCE DIVERSITY, not precision: it is derived only from distinctSources (≤1 very_low, ≤3 low, ≤9 moderate, ≤24 high, ≥25 very_high) and is computed without reference to the confidence interval. It can read `moderate` on an estimate whose interval spans nearly the whole range — always read ciLowPct/ciHighPct alongside it, and treat a wide interval as the binding statement about how well we know the rate. The converse does NOT hold, and until 2026-09-11 nothing here said so: a NARROW interval is not evidence of a well-known rate. τ² (the between-study heterogeneity term) is 0 by construction when a single source entry contributes, so such an estimate publishes that one study's sampling interval and nothing else — read `intervalBasis` on every pooled block (`sampling_only_single_source` vs `sampling_plus_between_study`, with `intervalNote`/`intervalNoteNl` spelling it out) before reading a tight range as precision.","samplingNote":"Registry sampling bias, disclosed 2026-09-10 and corrected 2026-09-16: registry rows collected before 2026-09-10 through the rotation path were capped at the five highest-percentage arm rows per trial, which selects on the rate being measured (19 of the 25 trials with stored registry rows at the time; the six pinned pivotal trials — SURMOUNT-1, SELECT, STEP 1, STEP 2, SURPASS-CVOT, retatrutide phase 2 — were never affected). The collector was fixed 2026-09-10 and the 19 trials were re-collected in full between 2026-09-10 and 2026-09-16 (every tracked non-placebo arm row the registry posts is stored, verified against the live registry on 2026-09-16), so each study's entry in a pooled estimate is now the mean of every arm the registry posts for that term, not of its five highest. Method, per-trial measurements and the correction record: §4 Limitations and correction-log items 25 and 32 of the published methodology, https://github.com/saurabhgoyal75/magistra-predictor/blob/main/preprint/magistra-methodology.md.","modifiers":{"femaleFactor":1.1,"ageFactor65plus":1,"giHistoryFactor":1,"diabetesFactor":1,"firstMonthFactor":1.2},"modifiersNote":"Odds ratios hand-coded at the 2026-04-12 seed with no per-modifier citation recorded — treat each as an expert-coded prior, not a sourced estimate. The empirical estimator runs daily and 12 of the 15 tracked effects now clear its 10-eligible-point minimum, but zero empirical modifiers have been applied and none can be under the current extraction: all 1,111 eligible rate points behind those fits carry sex 'unspecified' and none carries an age band including 65 (measured 2026-09-18), so both fitted covariates are constant and every coefficient fits at 0. Model config is v6 (2026-09-20); its post-seed changes re-sourced four static base rates (v2, 2026-09-04) and aligned narrative fields with their sources (v3, v5, v6). See ?q=help for the full methodology note.","reportingFrequency":{"mentions":0,"distinctReports":26,"sharePct":0,"platforms":["reddit.com","drugs.com"],"note":"Share of distinct community reports (one row per source URL) that mention this effect. Counts only reports hosted on the community platform itself, and — corrected 2026-08-29 — only Reddit posts from the GLP-1, weight-management and diabetes subreddits we collect from: the scraper's subreddit restriction was not holding, and 159 of the previous 185 reports were posts matched on a symptom word in unrelated communities (r/gallbladders, r/AskDocs, r/pregnant). News-aggregator results are excluded, see platforms. The remaining base is small and cannot currently grow (Reddit has blocked our collector since 2026-05-28), so read every share with its distinctReports denominator. Not an incidence rate; not comparable to clinicalRates."},"userReportedSeverity":"Withdrawn 2026-09-20: the account of what users report that stood here was typed at the 2026-04-12 seed and has no supporting report in this corpus. The community reporting frequency published beside this field is the measured figure — a share of our distinct community reports, not an incidence rate.","onsetDays":"Not stated by any clinical source on file.","durationWeeks":"Not stated by any clinical source on file.","managementTip":"If you notice reduced enjoyment of activities you used to love, talk to your doctor. Maintaining social connections and physical exercise can help. This effect is still being studied.","sources":[{"name":"Reddit r/Ozempic emotional blunting megathread (2024-2026)","type":"user_report","weight":0.5},{"name":"GLP-1 receptor CNS expression review (Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 2024) — mechanism plausibility only, states no incidence rate; the clinicalRates figures below are an unverified estimate, not derived from this or any rate-stating study","type":"clinical","weight":0.25},{"name":"NYT 'Ozempic Changed My Personality' investigation (2025)","type":"news","weight":0.25}]},"dataPointCount":36,"dataPointCountIncludingSeed":46,"dataPointCountNote":"dataPointCount excludes the 2026-04-12 seed rows (10 per effect, 150 corpus-wide) and therefore equals this effect's entry in dataPointsByEffect on ?q=overview. Corrected 2026-09-20: until then this field counted them and was 10 higher than that breakdown for every one of the 15 effects, while the overview's own total excluded them — the same scoping gap corrected in meta.totalPoints on 2026-09-11 and on /en/sources on 2026-09-10, in the one consumer nobody had re-read. dataPointCountIncludingSeed is the raw stored count, published beside it so the audit trail stays visible; the seed rows themselves are hand-written 2026-04-12 entries whose sourceUrl points back at magistra.health, and they support no published figure.","rateBase":{"note":"Only externally citable, non-duplicated rates support an estimate. Shares of spontaneous adverse-event reports (FAERS) are reported separately — they are not incidence. A source marked rateKind: \"serious_ae\" states a rate from a trial registry's SERIOUS adverse-events table for a term posted in no other table of the same arm — a real stated figure, but a floor on all-cause incidence, since the registry lists non-serious events only above the trial's reporting threshold.","clinical":{"statedRates":0,"distinctSources":0,"sourceEntries":0,"pooledEstimate":null,"confidenceNote":"`sourceDiversity` (formerly `confidence`, kept as a deprecated alias with the same value) measures SOURCE DIVERSITY, not precision: it is derived only from distinctSources (≤1 very_low, ≤3 low, ≤9 moderate, ≤24 high, ≥25 very_high) and is computed without reference to the confidence interval. It can read `moderate` on an estimate whose interval spans nearly the whole range — always read ciLowPct/ciHighPct alongside it, and treat a wide interval as the binding statement about how well we know the rate. The converse does NOT hold, and until 2026-09-11 nothing here said so: a NARROW interval is not evidence of a well-known rate. τ² (the between-study heterogeneity term) is 0 by construction when a single source entry contributes, so such an estimate publishes that one study's sampling interval and nothing else — read `intervalBasis` on every pooled block (`sampling_only_single_source` vs `sampling_plus_between_study`, with `intervalNote`/`intervalNoteNl` spelling it out) before reading a tight range as precision.","samplingNote":"Registry sampling bias, disclosed 2026-09-10 and corrected 2026-09-16: registry rows collected before 2026-09-10 through the rotation path were capped at the five highest-percentage arm rows per trial, which selects on the rate being measured (19 of the 25 trials with stored registry rows at the time; the six pinned pivotal trials — SURMOUNT-1, SELECT, STEP 1, STEP 2, SURPASS-CVOT, retatrutide phase 2 — were never affected). The collector was fixed 2026-09-10 and the 19 trials were re-collected in full between 2026-09-10 and 2026-09-16 (every tracked non-placebo arm row the registry posts is stored, verified against the live registry on 2026-09-16), so each study's entry in a pooled estimate is now the mean of every arm the registry posts for that term, not of its five highest. Method, per-trial measurements and the correction record: §4 Limitations and correction-log items 25 and 32 of the published methodology, https://github.com/saurabhgoyal75/magistra-predictor/blob/main/preprint/magistra-methodology.md.","seriousAeSources":0,"drugMix":[],"drugMixNote":"Which molecules the rows behind this estimate describe. statedRates counts eligible rate rows — the same n published beside the estimate — and pooledWeightPct is the share of the weighted mean that drug's collapsed source entries actually carry, after one-entry-per-source collapsing and sample-size weighting. The two diverge widely: a drug can hold most of the rows and little of the weight when its rows are many small arms of a few trials. Read pooledWeightPct for what moves the percentage and statedRates for what the n is made of. Per-drug distinctStudies can sum above this estimate's own distinctSources — a trial with a comparator arm posts rows under two molecules and counts once under each. The drug is the one the row's own arm or source names; \"(unlabelled)\" is a row whose source names no molecule.","sources":[],"excluded":{"seed_unverified":3},"usesPublishedFallback":false},"community":{"statedRates":0,"distinctSources":0,"sourceEntries":0,"excluded":{"no_rate":36,"seed_unverified":7},"usesPublishedFallback":true},"spontaneousReportShares":[],"spontaneousReportSharesNote":"`shareOfReports` is not a share of reports and not a share of patients. The collector reads openFDA's `count=patient.reaction.reactionmeddrapt.exact` endpoint, which ranks a drug's reaction terms by how many reports name each one, and keeps the top 30. `reports` is the count for this term; `totalReports` is the SUM of that 30-term list — so a report naming several reactions is counted under each of them, the denominator is a count of term-mentions rather than of reports, and every term outside the top 30 is in neither numerator nor denominator. Checked against the live endpoint on 2026-09-19: liraglutide's top-30 counts sum to 52,864 while openFDA returns 50,705 reports for the drug in total, so the two quantities are close in size and are not the same thing. Each row is also a snapshot from the day it was scraped (2026-04-07 to 2026-08-13; the newest FAERS row in the corpus is 2026-08-13) and is never refreshed, and this is structural rather than a lapsed schedule: the collector queries openFDA every day, but openFDA returns the same query URL for every reaction term of a drug and a row's identity in our store is that URL plus the effect, so a (drug, effect) pair already stored can never be re-read. Liraglutide's PANCREATITIS count was 2,343 when scraped and 2,356 on 2026-09-19; semaglutide NAUSEA was 11,506 of an 82,377 top-30 sum (14.0%) and reads 10,674 of 97,939 (10.9%) on 2026-09-19. Two rows are far worse than the rest and should not be read as a signal at all: orforglipron NAUSEA and orforglipron DYSPEPSIA were both scraped on 2026-04-08, when that drug's entire FAERS record held two term-mentions, so both publish `shareOfReports: 0.5` on `totalReports: 2` — one mention out of two — and neither can refresh (the same query on 2026-09-19 returns 179 of 1,154 for NAUSEA). Read all of these as a dated ranking signal among a drug's most-reported terms, and take the current figure from openFDA directly. Field names are unchanged for API stability; this note states what they measure. What to do about the underlying rows is an open founder decision (`faers-share-denominator-stale-and-mislabelled-2026-09-19`)."},"dataPointsBySource":{"clinical":0,"regulatory":0,"user_report":16,"news":20},"sampleDataPoints":[{"sourceName":"The Guardian — Retatrutide emotional side effects (Apr 2026)","sourceType":"news","sourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/apr/06/is-retatrutide-experimental-weight-loss-drug-making-people-fall-out-of-love","extractedRate":null,"extractedSeverity":"moderate","extractedSampleSize":null,"extractionConfidence":"medium","scrapedAt":"2026-04-06T19:33:40.881Z"},{"sourceName":"BritBrief — Retatrutide emotional side effects report","sourceType":"news","sourceUrl":"https://britbrief.co.uk/health/pharmaceuticals/retatrutide-drug-linked-to-emotional-side-effects-in-users.html","extractedRate":null,"extractedSeverity":"moderate","extractedSampleSize":null,"extractionConfidence":"low","scrapedAt":"2026-04-06T19:33:40.889Z"},{"sourceName":"MSN — GLP-1 patients report new side effect—and it’s hitting relationships hard - MSN","sourceType":"news","sourceUrl":"https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiwgFBVV95cUxOSkpYYVBodkJvV0xCRW1mQmxzd3U2RlVlNW91Q2wwX2hieHZJbk1BZHczT1hKZXc5b1BwekRZR19Ta3hQWGhfMEVXSHlFR0dfOHY3QXNxd0JHWl9NRG9tTzQteHdxRzF0YXBPemZJcEVZNmF0UDRGZXlnQkdxQTEtak5USkJaM0gwLXdVWXpER0E3a3dQOEdlZjlEMHd3S3pwcDBHSmRBSS1rUGV5Ynp3YTNFLUVSWkh0WVpWTlNneVloQQ?oc=5","extractedRate":null,"extractedSeverity":null,"extractedSampleSize":null,"extractionConfidence":"low","scrapedAt":"2026-04-12T10:25:53.147Z","excludedFromPublished":"off-topic source: not a GLP-1/weight-management/diabetes community report"},{"sourceName":"Reddit r/Ozempic emotional blunting megathread (2024-2026)","sourceType":"user_report","sourceUrl":"https://magistra.health/nl/science#emotional_blunting","extractedRate":0.02,"extractedSeverity":"moderate","extractedSampleSize":200,"extractionConfidence":"high","scrapedAt":"2026-04-12T12:37:28.021Z","excludedFromPublished":"2026-04-12 seed row: hand-written at the seed, not scraped, sourceUrl points back at magistra.health — excluded from dataPointCount above, from every published corpus total and from every rate base. Flagged here from 2026-09-20; until then it appeared in this sample indistinguishable from a scraped source, and for headache and fatigue it was 5 of the 5 rows shown."},{"sourceName":"Reddit r/Ozempic emotional blunting megathread (2024-2026)","sourceType":"user_report","sourceUrl":"https://magistra.health/nl/science#emotional_blunting","extractedRate":0.03,"extractedSeverity":"moderate","extractedSampleSize":500,"extractionConfidence":"high","scrapedAt":"2026-04-12T12:37:28.021Z","excludedFromPublished":"2026-04-12 seed row: hand-written at the seed, not scraped, sourceUrl points back at magistra.health — excluded from dataPointCount above, from every published corpus total and from every rate base. Flagged here from 2026-09-20; until then it appeared in this sample indistinguishable from a scraped source, and for headache and fatigue it was 5 of the 5 rows shown."}],"lastUpdated":"2026-09-11"}