ClinicalTrials.gov’s official documentation says the UI’s “Other terms” field maps to the BasicSearch area / query.term, and that area searches 57 weighted fields with synonym expansion. That matters a lot here: the resolving count is broader than “new GLP-1 drug trials.” It can include studies that mention GLP-1 in titles, summaries, interventions, outcomes, keywords, or even eligibility/context fields, so the number should be materially higher than a title-only count. (clinicaltrials.gov)

For freshness, ClinicalTrials.gov says its data are refreshed daily Monday through Friday, generally by 9 a.m. ET, and the API version endpoint showed a data timestamp of 2026-06-22 when I checked. AACT, the public mirror/database of ClinicalTrials.gov, also says its content is refreshed daily and had both a 2026-06-23 daily snapshot and monthly archives for 2026-06-01, 2026-05-01, 2026-04-01, etc. available. That means the registry is active enough that using recent exemplars and near-term base rates is sensible for a forecast to an August 12, 2026 resolution. (clinicaltrials.gov)

The best anchor I found for base rates is to look at exact dated examples from prior nearby periods. In the comparable 2025 period, search snippets surfaced multiple GLP-1-mentioning studies with first-posted dates spread across June: NCT06401746 on 2025-06-01, NCT07017270 on 2025-06-12, NCT07021937 on 2025-06-15, NCT07073053 on 2025-06-16, NCT07044401 on 2025-06-23, NCT05419856 on 2025-06-25, and NCT07055516 on 2025-06-27. I also found a 2024 example, NCT06445075, first posted on 2024-06-06. These are not exhaustive counts, but they strongly suggest that the true process is in the low tens over a roughly 10-week window, not in the single digits and nowhere near 100. (clinicaltrials.gov)

The 2025 examples also show why this market is broader than “obesity incretin pipeline” alone. Some records are directly centered on GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as GUARD-1 or the brain-plasticity obesity study, while others appear because GLP-1 is mentioned in background, concomitant-therapy context, or eligibility language, such as NCT07055516 and NCT06445075. That broad search logic pushes the expected count upward relative to counting only semaglutide/tirzepatide-type registrational programs. (clinicaltrials.gov)

For the current year, I found at least one clearly qualifying study already inside the target window: NCT07628127 was first posted on 2026-06-04 and explicitly contains “Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)” in the record. That confirms the process is live in-window. I was not able to exhaustively enumerate all June 2026 GLP-1 hits through this interface, so I treat the current-year evidence as a partial lower bound rather than a complete count. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My synthesis is: (1) the metric is broad because of the Other-terms / BasicSearch definition; (2) nearby historical exemplars imply a cadence in the low tens over a 68-day window; (3) 2026 should be at least similar, because incretin research remains very active across obesity, diabetes, CV-kidney-metabolic disease, surgery/anesthesia, cognition, liver disease, and combination-therapy contexts; but (4) saturation and registry noise argue against extrapolating to a very high number. On balance, I center the forecast at 18.4 studies, with moderate dispersion. That corresponds roughly to a 90% interval in the high single digits to low 30s, and it leaves only negligible probability above 40 and effectively none above 100. (clinicaltrials.gov)

I treated this as a near-term count forecast. ClinicalTrials.gov says the UI field called ‘Other terms’ maps to query.term, i.e. the BasicSearch area, and that area spans 57 data fields rather than only titles; it also notes weekday data refreshes and that there is typically a lag of a few days between First Submitted and First Posted. That matters here because qualifying studies can match GLP-1 in many different places in the record, and because the August 12 resolution date should capture most records first posted through August 7 even if there is some posting lag. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Because I could not directly pull an official bulk count for the exact August-resolution query in this browsing session, I triangulated from recent posting cadence. A U.S. monthly report sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov/AACT shows 703 U.S. new studies in May 2026, including at least four clear GLP-1-related new postings in that month: NCT07572513, NCT07588984, NCT07607587, and NCT07611201. Similar title-explicit scans of the same report format show about four clear GLP-1-related U.S. new studies in February 2026 and about four in March 2026; April’s exact-string title scan was zero, which I read as noise plus title-only undercount rather than a true collapse in GLP-1 activity. (hipa.ai)

I then adjusted upward from those title-explicit U.S. counts for two reasons. First, the official resolution search is broader than titles, so some qualifying studies will mention GLP-1 only in descriptions, interventions, conditions, or outcomes. Second, official recent ClinicalTrials.gov results show non-U.S. GLP-1 study postings as well, for example the Canadian LEAST stroke trial NCT07511543 with First Posted 2026-04-06. Recent examples also span very different subtopics—nutrition/physiology (NCT07572513), digital obesity programs (NCT07588984), tolerability after prior GLP-1 therapy (NCT07607587), stroke neuroprotection (NCT07511543), and other metabolic or obesity-adjacent work—so activity looks broad rather than dependent on one narrow niche. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My base-rate model starts from roughly 3-4 title-explicit U.S. GLP-1 new studies per month in recent reports. I then apply an overall multiplier of about 2x to allow for both non-U.S. studies and title-miss / other-field-hit studies that would still qualify under the official ‘Other terms’ rule. That yields a global cadence near 7-9 new qualifying studies per month. Over the 68-day window from June 1 through August 7, which is about 2.23 months, that implies roughly 16-20 studies before any trend adjustment. Because GLP-1 research remains unusually active across obesity, diabetes, surgery, stroke, and adjunctive-therapy use cases, I nudged the center slightly upward rather than downward. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My final mean forecast is 21.4, with a median around 20-21 and the mode in the low 20s. I represent uncertainty with a mixture of negative-binomial regimes: a slower regime if recent title-visible counts are closer to the true global pace, a base regime near the extrapolated cadence, and a higher regime if broad Other-terms matching plus international activity adds more studies than the recent U.S. reports reveal. That gives an 80% interval of roughly 11 to 32 and a very small tail above 50. My single best point forecast is 21. (clinicaltrials.gov)

ClinicalTrials.gov’s “Other terms” search corresponds to the BasicSearch area, which spans 57 data fields and supports synonym expansion; “First posted” is the date when a study record first becomes publicly available after NLM quality-control review, and ClinicalTrials.gov notes that there is typically a delay of a few days between first submission and first posting. The site’s API documentation also says the database refreshes daily Monday through Friday, generally by 9 a.m. ET, and the version endpoint showed a data timestamp of 2026-06-22 when I checked. (clinicaltrials.gov)

The resolution mechanism is operationally clear: ClinicalTrials.gov search results report the total number of matching studies, can be sorted by “Newest First” using First posted date, and can generate RSS feeds for a specific search that list studies first posted in the last 14 days. That supports using recent first-posted records as calibration, even though from this interface I could not run the exact August 12, 2026 filtered search that will resolve the market. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Recent official study-record snippets show an active near-term flow of new GLP-1-related postings around the target window. Examples I could confirm include NCT07505134 (First Posted 2026-04-01), NCT07511543 (2026-04-06), NCT07566299 (2026-05-05), NCT07572513 (2026-05-07), NCT07588984 (2026-05-15), NCT07607587 (2026-05-26), and NCT07628127 (2026-06-04). So by June 23, 2026, I can directly verify at least one qualifying first-posted study already inside the resolution window, plus several immediately preceding it. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My main uncertainty is completeness, not direction. Those official snippets are clearly not an exhaustive census of all matching GLP-1 records, so I treat them as a lower bound rather than a point estimate. A simple floor from the surfaced records is 7 studies over the 65 days from April 1, 2026 through June 4, 2026, or about 0.11/day. My adjustment for search-snippet incompleteness is roughly 2x to 3x, implying an underlying arrival rate around 0.25 to 0.35 qualifying studies per day. Over the 68-day resolution window from June 1 through August 7 inclusive, that converts to about 17 to 24 studies. I center slightly below the midpoint, at 19, because GLP-1 is a very active area but the resolution uses new first postings only, not updates to existing records. I represent uncertainty with an overdispersed negative-binomial distribution, giving substantial mass to outcomes in roughly the low teens through upper 20s, with thinner tails beyond that. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Bottom line: my median/central estimate is 19 new studies. What I found but could not fully verify is the exact exhaustive count history for the precise “Other terms = GLP-1” query, because I could confirm the official search rules and several recent first-posted examples but could not execute the exact full search workflow that will be used on August 12, 2026. (clinicaltrials.gov)

I anchored first on the mechanics of the resolution source. On ClinicalTrials.gov, the “Other terms” box maps to the BasicSearch area (query.term), which searches 57 fields including titles, conditions, interventions, summaries, and outcome text; synonym expansion is built into many of those text fields. “First Posted” is the date the record first becomes publicly available after NLM quality-control review, and it can lag the first submission by a few days. The ClinicalTrials.gov API version endpoint showed a data timestamp of 2026-06-22, so the currently observable June activity is informative but not yet the final August 12 resolution snapshot. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Context matters because GLP-1 remains a very active research area. ClinicalTrials.gov says new studies are added almost every day, and a 2024 Diabetes Care review says dozens of new GLP-1 medicines are being investigated in the clinic. That argues against using the long-run all-time average GLP-1 count as the main base rate; recent registration flow should be materially higher than the historical average over the whole life of the registry. (clinicaltrials.gov)

For hard evidence already inside the target window, I can confirm at least two qualifying records. NCT07628127 mentions GLP-1 in searchable keywords and was first posted on 2026-06-04. NCT07638592 is a tirzepatide study that mentions GLP-1 and was first posted on 2026-06-10. So the count is already at least 2 for roughly the first 10 days of the 68-day window. (clinicaltrials.gov)

The immediate pre-window pace looks meaningfully higher than a trivial single-digit trajectory. I can identify one exact May first-posted record, NCT07599046 (First Posted 2026-05-13), plus several other distinct GLP-1-related records surfaced as newly published in May or late May: NCT07559500, NCT07566299, NCT07563699, NCT07588984, NCT07589322, and NCT07605572. Because these come from search-engine snippets rather than a direct registry export, I treat them as a lower bound rather than a census; still, they strongly suggest that a full June 1-August 7 total in the teens or low 20s is more plausible than a very low outcome. (clinicaltrials.gov)

I also adjusted upward for breadth. The question will not count only dedicated GLP-1 drug trials. Because the BasicSearch area searches many fields, any new study record that mentions GLP-1 in searchable text can qualify. The surfaced examples include studies where GLP-1 appears in keywords or exclusion criteria even when the overall study topic is broader than incretin pharmacology. That broadens the pool relative to a narrow count of classic obesity/diabetes GLP-1 efficacy trials only. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My quantitative blend used three scenarios for the full June 1, 2026 through August 7, 2026 window: a cool scenario of 14, a base scenario of 18, and a hot scenario of 24, weighted 30%, 45%, and 25%. That gives a scenario-weighted mean of 18.3. I then widened the distribution to reflect search-surface incompleteness, possible indexing lag, and the fact that the final resolution search is later than today, using a negative-binomial distribution with mean 18.3 and standard deviation about 8.5. This puts most mass in the low teens through mid-20s, with a smaller but real tail into the 30s. (clinicaltrials.gov)

My best point estimate is 18. The median is around 17-18. I think outcomes above 35 are possible but not likely, and outcomes above 50 are very unlikely. The main reason not to go lower is that the observable May/June signal already looks too active for a tiny count, while the main reason not to go much higher is that even in a hot field the flow of first-posted GLP-1-mentioning studies over just 68 days is still constrained by the pace of study registration and QC posting. (clinicaltrials.gov)

I treated this as a near-term count of study records that would be returned by ClinicalTrials.gov’s “Other terms” logic for GLP-1 and then filtered by First Posted date. Official documentation says the “Other terms” field maps to query.term, which uses the BasicSearch area across 57 fields with synonym support, and the relevant date field is the study’s first-posted date, defined as when the record first became public after NLM quality-control review. ClinicalTrials.gov also says the API data refreshes daily on weekdays; the current API data timestamp is 2026-06-22. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Because I could not directly execute the exact August 12 resolution search from this environment, I used official mirror metadata and current official study pages as proxies. AACT states that it contains all publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov protocol and results data and is updated nightly from ClinicalTrials.gov, making it a reasonable one-day-lag mirror for base-rate work. Its current data dictionary shows 375,612 rows in the ctgov.studies table. (aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org)

For the overall registry flow, I used AACT snapshot metadata as a coarse proxy. The June 1, 2026 flat-file archive is listed at 2.28 GB, while the June 3, 2025 archive on the 2025 page is 2.03 GB; that does not map one-for-one into study counts, but it does indicate continued substantial database growth over the last year. Combined with the current 375,612-study scale, and the fact that ClinicalTrials.gov has existed since February 29, 2000, I infer that present-day first-posted volume is likely materially above the long-run historical average and plausibly in the rough neighborhood of 70-90 first-posted studies per day. That is an inference, not a directly observed count, and it is the weakest link in the estimate. (aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org)

I then estimated the GLP-1 share of new postings. The upside case is that the search is broader than title-only because BasicSearch covers summaries, interventions, outcomes, and other fields with synonym support, so many studies can qualify even when GLP-1 appears in background text or eligibility/exclusion language rather than in the headline title. Recent official ClinicalTrials.gov pages also show ongoing spring-2026 GLP-1-related posting activity, including NCT07628127 with First Posted 2026-05-29 and other recently surfaced GLP-1-related records such as NCT07572513, NCT07505303, and NCT07511543. (clinicaltrials.gov)

The downside case is that this is not the count of all semaglutide/tirzepatide/incretin studies. Resolution requires a study to be returned by the GLP-1 search (or, in fallback, to actually mention GLP-1/GLP1/glucagon-like peptide-1 in specified fields), so some incretin-adjacent studies will miss. ClinicalTrials.gov also notes that there is typically a delay of a few days between first submission and first posting, which adds noise right near the August 7 cutoff. (clinicaltrials.gov)

Putting that together, my rough arithmetic is: a working total first-posted flow around 80/day, multiplied by a GLP-1-match share around 0.8%, over 68 days, gives about 44 studies. Since 23 of the 68 days had already elapsed as of June 23, that implies roughly 15 should already be in the window and roughly 30 more would arrive over the remaining 45 days if the pace held. I centered the forecast at 45 and used a negative-binomial distribution rather than a Poisson to allow for overdispersion from search-indexing quirks, synonym expansion, and bursts of sponsor registrations. That leaves most probability mass in the low-30s to high-50s, a meaningful tail into the 60s-70s, and only a very small chance of exceeding 100.

How many new ClinicalTrials.gov studies mentioning GLP-1 will be first posted between June 1, 2026 and August 7, 2026?

• My most likely prediction for new ClinicalTrials.gov studies mentioning GLP-1 is 34.50, with a 50% chance of falling between 26.50 and 49.50.
• Research activity is currently at a structural peak, with metabolic trial initiations growing 47% annually and biotech R&D employment reaching record levels in early 2026.
• The 68-day window (June 1–August 7) will capture several major announced Phase 3 program initiations from companies like AstraZeneca, Kailera, and Pfizer.
• Beyond primary drug developers, a significant volume of trials will likely come from academic researchers investigating GLP-1 effects on adjacent conditions such as oncology, addiction, and sleep apnea.
• The ‘First Posted’ date requirement introduces a potential lag, meaning studies submitted in the final week of the window may not be posted in time for resolution.
• Market leaders like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk continue to expand their R&D budgets, reaching multi-billion dollar quarterly spends that support high-volume trial registration.

Key figures

Historical context

The clinical research landscape for GLP-1 receptor agonists has transitioned from a niche diabetes focus to a broad metabolic and systemic health frontier. Historically, clinical trial registration was mandated for Phase 2 and 3 trials by the FDAAA of 2007. Since the 2021-2023 surge in public interest for drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, the registry has seen a structural shift. GlobalData reports that metabolic disease trial initiations increased by 47% between 2024 and 2025 alone. Historically, the ‘First Posted’ date on ClinicalTrials.gov lags the ‘First Submitted’ date by several days to a week due to mandatory quality-control reviews. Previous periods of high activity in the sector, such as the initial launches of dual-agonists (tirzepatide), saw clustering of registrations as companies secured intellectual property and regulatory pathways for multiple indications simultaneously (e.g., obesity, MASH, and cardiovascular outcomes). Current 2026 data shows biotech R&D employment at record highs (over 297,000 persons), suggesting the human capital capacity to support a high volume of new trial registrations is currently at a historical peak.

Tailwinds

• Generic Expansion: Patent expirations for semaglutide in early 2026 (Brazil, India) have triggered an influx of generic/biosimilar trials from international manufacturers.
• Therapeutic Diversification: Recent data linking GLP-1 to 30% lower breast cancer risk and reduced substance use disorder mortality is driving a new wave of investigator-led ‘crossover’ studies.
• Synchronized Phase 3 Starts: Multiple developers (Structure, Kailera, AstraZeneca) have targeted Q3 2026 for pivotal trial initiations, which often involves registering multiple NCT numbers for separate protocols.

Headwinds

• Administrative Delays: The ‘First Posted’ date follows a quality-control review by NLM staff; any backlog in this process could push studies submitted in early August past the August 7 cutoff.
• Registration Timing: Some major programs announced in June (like AstraZeneca’s elecoglipron) may have completed their registration slightly before the June 1 window opened.
• Search String Specificity: If trials are registered using proprietary names (e.g., ‘Foundayo’) or specific chemical identifiers without including ‘GLP-1’ in the ‘Other terms’ field, they will not be counted.

Detailed reasoning

My prediction is derived from a synthesis of current clinical pipeline activity, historical growth in metabolic disease research, and the specific mechanics of the ClinicalTrials.gov registration process. The forecasting window spans 68 days (approximately 2.23 months), a period characterized by intense competition in the ‘incretin race.’

My analysis begins with the ‘Inside View’—identifying specific, high-probability protocol registrations. Major pharmaceutical firms have publicly announced significant Phase 3 programs targeted for mid-to-late 2026. AstraZeneca announced its Phase 3 elecoglipron program (EMBOLD and ELUMINATE) on June 8, 2026. Kailera Therapeutics recently initiated its three-trial KaiNETIC Phase 3 program. Pfizer, following its Metsera acquisition, has set a target of 10 obesity Phase 3 starts for 2026. Amgen and Eli Lilly are similarly expanding indications into sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and substance use disorders. These named corporate programs are likely to contribute between 8 and 15 distinct NCT records during the window, as many ‘programs’ are registered as multiple separate protocols for different patient populations or dosages.

The ‘Outside View’ addresses the broader research baseline. Historically, metabolic disease trial initiations grew by 47% between 2024 and 2025. This surge is driven not only by primary drug developers but by hundreds of independent academic and medical researchers investigating secondary uses of approved GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. Data from early 2026 showed the number of US trials recruiting for tirzepatide rising by roughly 30% in just two months. Scaling this global interest to a 68-day window, I estimate a baseline posting rate of 12 to 18 studies per month for the broader ecosystem.

Combining these factors, I predict a most likely outcome of 34.5 studies. The 50% Highest Density Interval (HDI) of 26.5 to 49.5 reflects the uncertainty regarding exactly when these announced programs will clear the National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality-control review to become ‘First Posted.’ If several major Phase 3 programs cluster their registrations in July, the value could easily exceed 50. Conversely, if most upcoming Phase 3 trials were registered slightly before June 1 or are delayed into late August, the count will rely primarily on the steady investigator-led baseline, leading to an outcome in the low 20s.

I weighted the probability of an extreme surge (above 100) as very low (<1%). While research is accelerating, the administrative process of trial registration and the finite number of large-scale sponsors act as a natural brake on triple-digit growth within a sub-70-day window. The open upper bound is acknowledged but is unlikely to be tested based on current sector throughput.

Key uncertainties

• NLM Quality Control Volatility: The time between ‘First Submitted’ and ‘First Posted’ can vary based on the complexity of the trial record and NLM staffing levels.
• Search Tool Indexing: The resolution depends on the ClinicalTrials.gov search algorithm’s ability to map synonyms at the specific snapshot time of August 12.
• Protocol Consolidation: Companies may choose to register large ‘Master Protocols’ (one NCT number for multiple indications) rather than separate studies, which would lower the unique NCT count.

Conclusion

• Decision-makers should expect approximately 34 to 50 new GLP-1 study records to be posted during this 68-day window, driven by a historically high volume of metabolic research.
• While individual blockbuster programs (like AstraZeneca’s elecoglipron) generate significant news, the majority of resolution volume will likely come from the broader academic and investigator-led research ecosystem using these drugs as comparators or in adjacent indications.
• Watch for any administrative backlogs at ClinicalTrials.gov (NLM review delays) as we approach the August 12 resolution date, which could cause valid June/July submissions to fall outside the ‘First Posted’ window.

Question: How many ClinicalTrials.gov records with “GLP-1” in the registry will be First Posted between 2026-06-01 and 2026-08-07 (official count as of Aug 12, 2026)? Forecasters agree the count should be derived from a broad ClinicalTrials.gov text search (query.term=GLP-1) constrained by First Posted dates, and that the search universe (≈4,079 GLP-1 hits) includes many observational/safety/behavioral/biomarker records so counts will be higher and lumpier than a narrow drug-pipeline prior. Agents could not produce an exhaustive partial-window API total, though one model reported ~40 records for 2026-06-01–06-22 and several June examples were independently verified, establishing a clear lower bound and supporting active posting flow. Historical 2025 analogues show multiple late-July/early-August postings, and forecasters recommend obtaining the exact API count and modeling remaining-window postings with an overdispersed (negative-binomial) process and a near-cutoff lag adjustment. Most teams center forecasts in the mid-40s to ~50 for the full window when accounting for uncertainty, but two models—using the June partial spike and elevated 2026 rates—project much higher means (~100–105) and place nontrivial probability mass above the 100.5 cutoff. Primary risks to the forecast are search/indexing quirks, QC posting lags, and inclusion of peri-procedural or observational records that mention GLP-1; resolving the official API query on resolution day will dominate accuracy.

Forecast and Reasoning

Forecast: Probability distribution:

• 1.00% chance of value below 5.0
• 5.00% chance of value below 10.0
• 10.00% chance of value below 16.0
• 20.00% chance of value below 28.0
• 30.00% chance of value below 42.0
• 40.00% chance of value below 55.0
• 50.00% chance of value below 68.0
• 60.00% chance of value below 80.0
• 70.00% chance of value below 94.0
• 80.00% chance of value below 107.0
• 90.00% chance of value below 120.0
• 95.00% chance of value below 124.0
• 99.00% chance of value below 125.25

Forecast Reasoning

We are forecasting a 68-day window (June 1–August 7, 2026) of newly “First Posted” ClinicalTrials.gov records that are returned by an “Other terms” search for GLP-1 (including synonyms/variants).

Key driver is the fraction of all newly first-posted studies that end up matching this fairly broad keyword search. With overall ClinicalTrials.gov first-posting volume plausibly on the order of ~100+ studies/day (thousands over 68 days), even a sub-1% match rate yields several dozen studies, while a ~1%+ match rate yields ~70–110+.

Among the analysts, Forecaster 2 appears potentially low if the search expansion and “mention” criterion pulls in background/comparator/exclusion mentions; Forecasters 1 and 3 appear potentially high, with Forecaster 3 likely overcounting by assuming the keyword search effectively includes everything (e.g., eligibility criteria) and by leaning hard into “hype”. My synthesis is a middle path: sustained GLP-1 trial activity plus broad matching implies a median in the high tens, with a material chance the count exceeds 100 (open upper tail), but not so dominant that >100 is the median outcome.

I therefore place the median around ~70 studies and assign roughly ~20–30% probability mass to outcomes above 100 (expressed via percentiles strictly past the upper bound).

An amateur forecast is likely to (a) anchor on one narrative (“GLP-1 is huge, so it must be >100”) or the opposite (“it’s a niche term, so it must be small”), and/or (b) mishandle the open upper bound by piling percentiles at the cap instead of placing them past-bound. This forecast explicitly reconciles the competing base rates (overall posting volume × plausible match fraction), accounts for uncertainty about how broad the ‘Other terms’ matching is in practice, and cleanly represents the chance of exceeding 100 by placing upper percentiles strictly above the bound. Confidence is moderate: the main uncertainty is the true effective breadth of the search/indexing behavior on the resolution date.

Forecast rationale (numeric):

— Iteration 1 — The forecasts rely on a common core logic: start from the large existing stock of GLP-1-related ClinicalTrials.gov studies, assume the GLP-1 area remains highly active in 2026, and then project how many additional studies would be first posted during the 68-day window from June 1 to August 7, 2026.

Key reasoning patterns:

• Base-rate extrapolation: Both estimates anchor to the large cumulative number of GLP-1 studies already registered by mid-2024 and extend that trend into 2026.
• Strong field momentum: Each rationale assumes the GLP-1 therapeutic area continues to generate substantial new trial activity, which keeps the expected count well above zero.
• Search-definition uncertainty: A major source of variation is how strictly “mentioning GLP-1” is interpreted in ClinicalTrials.gov search results. A narrower literal interpretation lowers the count; a broader semantic or indexing interpretation raises it.
• Window conversion: Both translate an assumed monthly posting rate into the 68-day period, but they differ substantially in the implied monthly rate.
• Right-skewed uncertainty: Both allow for occasional bursts from sponsor launches or batch registrations, creating an upside tail above the median estimate.

Areas of consensus:

• The count is likely material, not trivial—probably in the dozens to low hundreds.
• There is meaningful uncertainty because recent monthly posting data are not directly available.
• The distribution should be right-skewed, with the possibility of spikes.

Main disagreement:

• The central estimate differs mainly because one forecast assumes a more conservative posting rate and tighter search matching, while the other assumes a higher active-registration rate and more generous matching behavior.

Overall, the collective reasoning points to a robust but uncertain expectation of a substantial number of new GLP-1-related study postings in that period, with the final tally highly sensitive to search semantics and short-term registration bursts.

— Iteration 2 — Across the rationales, the main approach is to extrapolate from the recent posting rate of GLP-1-related studies on ClinicalTrials.gov over the 68-day window. All three treat GLP-1 as a rapidly expanding research area, so they expect a nontrivial number of new first-posted studies rather than a sparse count.

Shared reasoning patterns

• Base-rate extrapolation: Each forecast starts from an estimated monthly or daily posting rate and scales it to the June 1–August 7 period.
• Growth in GLP-1 research: All assume continued strong sponsor activity and heavy pipeline momentum in this therapeutic area.
• Keyword/search effects: They recognize that the count depends on how broadly “mentioning GLP-1” is captured, including synonyms, related terms, and incidental mentions.
• Uncertainty from timing and indexing: One rationale explicitly adjusts for posting/indexing latency, especially for studies first appearing near the end of the window.
• Skewed uncertainty: All allow for a wide range, with a right tail that could rise if there is a burst of registrations or broader search matching than expected.

Main disagreement

• The forecasts differ mainly in their assumed underlying posting rate:
  • one assumes a lower recent rate and lands in the mid-40s,
  • another uses a moderate daily rate and centers around the high-70s,
  • the most aggressive assumes a much higher monthly rate, pushing the center to roughly 110–130.
• They also differ on how much to weight soft upper-bound guidance versus the possibility that broad matching or rapid growth could push the total above 100.

Overall synthesis

The collective reasoning suggests a highly active but uncertain flow of GLP-1-related trials, with the final count driven primarily by the recent trend in registrations, then adjusted for search definition breadth and posting delays. There is broad agreement on the direction of uncertainty, but substantial disagreement on the exact level of activity, which leads to central estimates ranging from tens to just over 100.

— Iteration 3 — Across the forecasts, the main reasoning pattern is a base-rate-plus-growth approach:

• Baseline activity: ClinicalTrials.gov receives a very large number of new registrations overall, and a 68-day window is only a small slice of that flow.
• GLP-1 share: GLP-1 studies are treated as a small fraction of total new studies, but one that is higher than historical baseline because GLP-1 / incretin therapies are a major research area in 2026.
• Search-term sensitivity: A major source of uncertainty is whether the query for “GLP-1” is interpreted narrowly (literal term matching) or broadly (capturing related agonists and naming variants). This could materially change the count.
• Short-window noise: Several forecasts note that batch registrations, sponsor timing, and indexing effects can create noticeable variation over a two-month period.

Areas of agreement

• The outcome should be well below the total number of all new trials in the period, but still meaningfully elevated because GLP-1 research is very active.
• Most reasoning places the result in a range of tens of studies, not hundreds.
• There is broad agreement that the upper bound is constrained by the short time window and the likely specificity of the search.

Areas of disagreement

• The main disagreement is on the central estimate:
  • one view puts it in the low-to-mid 40s,
  • another around the high 40s,
  • and a more expansive interpretation pushes it toward around 90–100.
• The spread comes mostly from differing assumptions about how broad the “GLP-1” match is and how much the recent surge in GLP-1 trials should be extrapolated into the forecast window.

Overall synthesis

The collective reasoning suggests that the count of new ClinicalTrials.gov studies mentioning GLP-1 between June 1 and August 7, 2026 will likely be moderate, probably in the dozens, driven upward by strong therapeutic interest but bounded by the short timeframe and query-definition uncertainty.

SUMMARY

Question: How many new ClinicalTrials.gov studies mentioning GLP-1 will be first posted between June 1, 2026 and August 7, 2026? Final Prediction: Probability distribution:

• 10.00% chance of value below 24.4
• 20.00% chance of value below 30.4
• 40.00% chance of value below 39.4
• 60.00% chance of value below 47.9
• 80.00% chance of value below 61.9
• 90.00% chance of value below 74.9

Total Cost: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Time Spent: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled LLMs: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Bot Name: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled

Report 1 Summary

Forecasts

Forecaster 1: Probability distribution:

• 10.00% chance of value below 29.4
• 20.00% chance of value below 35.4
• 40.00% chance of value below 45.4
• 60.00% chance of value below 54.4
• 80.00% chance of value below 68.4
• 90.00% chance of value below 81.4

Forecaster 2: Probability distribution:

• 10.00% chance of value below 19.4
• 20.00% chance of value below 25.4
• 40.00% chance of value below 33.4
• 60.00% chance of value below 41.4
• 80.00% chance of value below 55.4
• 90.00% chance of value below 68.4

Research Summary

The research finds that GLP-1 clinical research has expanded rapidly through mid‑2026: trials are being registered across many new indications (alcohol use disorder, substance-use disorders, cancer progression, mental health, ADPKD, Type 1 diabetes, spinal cord injury, etc.), with multiple recent and newly posted ClinicalTrials.gov records (examples cited include NCT07627074, NCT07588984, NCT07220759, NCT07368855, NCT07284511 and others). Market and prescribing data cited in the research show large growth in GLP‑1 use (a reported 587% increase in prescriptions for obesity from 2019–2024, ~8% of prescriptions by March 2026, ~2.86 million patients prescribed GLP‑1 RAs since 2019) and substantial commercial investment, which the research treats as context suggesting elevated trial activity. The research also notes the forecasting window (June 1–August 7, 2026; 68 days total) and that June 1–22, 2026 had already elapsed as of the research date.

The research also identifies key data gaps: no specific historical base‑rate data were found for how many GLP‑1 studies are posted per month/quarter on ClinicalTrials.gov, and no active prediction markets specific to GLP‑1 trial posting counts were identified on platforms searched (Metaculus, Polymarket, Kalshi). The research therefore emphasizes qualitative evidence of rapid growth and many example registrations but reports the absence of concrete monthly registration counts, seasonal patterns, and other quantitative baseline metrics needed for precise numeric forecasting.

Sources/websites used (links copied verbatim where available):

• ClinicalTrials.gov — https://clinicaltrials.gov
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07627074
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07588984
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07220759
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07368855
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07284511
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06706284
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03574597
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03548935
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06582875
• https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07091500
• Metaculus — https://www.metaculus.com
• Polymarket — https://polymarket.com
• Kalshi — https://www.kalshi.com
• ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) — https://www.asco.org
• BMJ (British Medical Journal) — https://www.bmj.com

RESEARCH

Report 1 Research

I’ll help you research this question about GLP-1 clinical trial registrations. Let me conduct a comprehensive search to find relevant news, trends, prediction markets, and base rates.

Frontier Forecast — Post 519

Modal: 38-50 (23.7%) • frontier aggregate • 7m12s

Interpret Summary

• Reading: strict
• Type: strict
• Window: Studies with First Posted date from June 1, 2026 through August 7, 2026, inclusive, as measured by a search performed on August 12, 2026

Resolution sources/checks:

• https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=GLP-1: https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=GLP-1 - Resolver URL extracted mechanically from resolution criteria

Edge cases:

• Search term scope: the primary criterion uses the ‘Other terms’ field/search, which may differ from a full-text search; some records mentioning GLP-1 only in certain fields could be excluded or included depending on how…
• Synonym matching: studies using ‘GLP1’ or ‘glucagon-like peptide-1’ but not ‘GLP-1’ may or may not be returned by the default search algorithm; the resolution criteria allow them but the default search behavior could exclude them, with…
• Indexing lag: studies posted close to August 7 may not be indexed by August 12, potentially reducing the count; the resolver uses the August 12 snapshot regardless.

Frontier Views (4/4)

• frontier_1 - Modal: 25-38 (40.0%)

  • Early-window signals show multiple GLP-1–related studies first posted in June 2026 (e.g., NCT07627074 posted Jun 4; an entry with First Posted on Jun 1; and a DMD GLP‑1 RA study captured mid‑June), implying a pace plausibly in the tens over the full Jun 1–Aug 7 window.

• frontier_2 - Modal: Above 100 (59.0%)

  • Direct ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 queries (the authoritative data underlying the named resolver search) anchor this forecast. Comparable full windows (Jun 1–Aug 7): 2024 = 52, 2025 = 73 (~40% YoY growth).

• frontier_3 - Modal: 38-50 (35.0%)

  • Historical data from a systematic review of obesity pharmacotherapy clinical trials (2019-2024) indicates roughly 192 incretin modulator (mostly GLP-1) trials were registered over 5 years, averaging ~38 per year for obesity alone.

• frontier_4 - Modal: 38-50 (45.0%)

  • 2025 saw 221 GLP-1 related trials registered (~18-19/month); the 68-day window implies a central expectation of ~41-43 records, placing highest probability in the 38-50 bin with secondary weight on 25-38.

Adjudication

• Material notes

  • frontier_1: flag_only/warning - Did not use the ClinicalTrials.gov API/resolver snapshot or otherwise fetch the authoritative count; relied on small-sample examples and prior rates.
  • frontier_3: flag_only/warning - Did not use the ClinicalTrials.gov API/resolver queries available and so treated a primarily queryable resolver as a background-rate problem.
  • frontier_4: flag_only/warning - Did not fetch the resolvable ClinicalTrials.gov API counts; relied on background monthly averages.

• Guidance

  • These lanes did not use the directly queryable ClinicalTrials.gov API/totalCount queries that at least one lane (frontier_2) used to establish a partial-window floor (Jun 1–23 = 40) and stronger evidence for an elevated run-rate. They relied on priors, small sample examples, or literature extrapolation instead of the resolver-accessible counts.

• Revision

  • Frontier revision skipped: no_selected_adjudicator_reviews.

Final Distribution (discrete bins)

Sources Checked

• Resolver: Resolver URL extracted mechanically from resolution criteria - https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=GLP-1
• frontier_1: NCT07627074 (Novo Nordisk) ‘Weight Loss in Adults Using Semaglutide (Real-world Study)’ — Posted to registry: Jun 4, 2026
• frontier_1: NCT07617155 — ‘First Posted. 2026-06-01’ (snippet)
• frontier_1: NCT07642635 — ‘Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists… DMD’ (captured mid‑June)
• frontier_2: ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 (resolution_source_query)
• frontier_2: Agent synthesis of API queries

wooley_rhino • run 7449cc82 • $3.34 • 7m12s

Extracted Percentile Values: {0.1: 2, 1.0: 6, 5.0: 12, 10.0: 17, 15.0: 21, 20.0: 24, 25.0: 27, 30.0: 30, 35.0: 33, 40.0: 36, 45.0: 38, 46.0: 39, 47.0: 40, 48.0: 41, 49.0: 41, 50.0: 42, 51.0: 43, 52.0: 44, 53.0: 45, 54.0: 46, 55.0: 47, 60.0: 50, 65.0: 54, 70.0: 58, 75.0: 63, 80.0: 68, 85.0: 74, 90.0: 82, 95.0: 95, 99.0: 120, 99.9: 150}

Model’s Answer: Looking at this forecasting question, I need to estimate how many ClinicalTrials.gov studies mentioning GLP-1 will be first posted during a 68-day window (June 1 - August 7, 2026).

Key Observations:

1. Time Period: The window spans 68 days total. As of today (June 23), we’re already 22 days into this period, with 45 days remaining until August 7.

2. GLP-1 Research Activity: The research indicates GLP-1 is experiencing peak clinical trial activity:

   • 2025 accounted for 16.4% of all historical GLP-1 trials (highest single year)
   • Multiple sponsors (Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, academic centers) actively registering trials
   • Expanding indications beyond diabetes/obesity (cardiovascular, NASH, addiction, oncology combinations)
   • Next-generation multi-agonists (retatrutide, etc.) generating additional trial lines

3. Direct Evidence: Research mentions specific 2026 NCTs (e.g., NCT07627191 first posted ~June 4, 2026), confirming ongoing registrations during the window.

4. Annual Estimates: Research suggests “dozens to low hundreds” of GLP-1-related studies annually. For a hot therapeutic area at peak activity, I estimate 100-200+ GLP-1-mentioning studies might be posted annually. For 68 days (~18.6% of year), this translates to roughly 18-40 studies as a central range.

Key Assumptions and Risks:

• Assumption 1: GLP-1 trial registration rates remain elevated through mid-2026 (~85% confidence). If regulatory or supply issues emerge, activity could slow.

• Assumption 2: The “Other terms” search captures most GLP-1 studies (~80% confidence). Search algorithm changes could affect counts.

• Assumption 3: No major platform outages or backlog issues (~90% confidence).

Low Outcome Scenario (10-20 studies): Could result from seasonal slowdown during summer months, regulatory tightening post-February 2026 FDA crackdown reducing trial registrations, or sponsors consolidating programs rather than initiating new studies. Likelihood: ~15-20%.

High Outcome Scenario (60-100+ studies): Could result from accelerated filing ahead of competitive pressures, multiple new indication expansions being registered simultaneously, or broader adoption of observational/real-world studies alongside interventional trials. Likelihood: ~15-20%.

Distribution Rationale: Given the evidence of sustained high activity but uncertainty about exact posting rates, I’m centering my distribution around 35-40 studies with wide confidence intervals to account for unknown variability in registration timing and search indexing.

Percentile .1: 2 Percentile 1: 6 Percentile 5: 12 Percentile 10: 17 Percentile 15: 21 Percentile 20: 24 Percentile 25: 27 Percentile 30: 30 Percentile 35: 33 Percentile 40: 36 Percentile 45: 38 Percentile 46: 39 Percentile 47: 40 Percentile 48: 41 Percentile 49: 41 Percentile 50: 42 Percentile 51: 43 Percentile 52: 44 Percentile 53: 45 Percentile 54: 46 Percentile 55: 47 Percentile 60: 50 Percentile 65: 54 Percentile 70: 58 Percentile 75: 63 Percentile 80: 68 Percentile 85: 74 Percentile 90: 82 Percentile 95: 95 Percentile 99: 120 Percentile 99.9: 150

Forecast (Q519): median = 100.2479 new ClinicalTrials.gov GLP-1 studies first posted between June 1, 2026 and August 7, 2026.

• There’s a strong starting floor: 40 studies are already seen within the first 23 days of the window, so the final answer can’t be much lower unless something unexpected happens with counting/indexing.
• The big uncertainty is what happens after that early-June burst: those first 23 days are running well above the 2025 pace for the same kind of calendar window (which ended up at 73 for the full June 1–Aug 7 period).
• Longer-run momentum matters too: GLP-1 trial registrations showed rapid growth from 2024 to 2025, so it’s plausible the higher activity carries forward rather than fully reverting.
• Remaining risk comes from lumpiness/batch posting (posting can bunch up) and summer timing effects, which can shift July/August counts up or down.
• Putting this together, the median lands in the middle: a partial reversion is plausible, but the historical growth and the already-strong early signal keep the forecast above a simple 2025 continuation.