Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

CGM Data Analysis 2.0: Functional Data Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review makes the case that CGM data analysis is shifting from summary statistics to whole-trace functional and AI methods for more personalized diabetes management.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy, honest caveats, but clinical-effectiveness claims exceed the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07885 v1 pith:K3GXACLT submitted 2025-05-10 q-bio.QM

David C. Klonoff , Richard M. Bergenstal , Eda Cengiz , Mark A. Clements , Daniel Espes , Juan Espinoza , David Kerr , Boris Kovatchev
show 11 more authors
David M. Maahs Julia K. Mader Nestoras Mathioudakis Ahmed A. Metwally Shahid N. Shah Bin Sheng Michael P. Snyder Guillermo Umpierrez Alessandra T. Ayers Cindy N. Ho Elizabeth Healey
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QM
keywords continuousglucosemonitoringfunctionaldataanalysisglucodensitymachinelearningartificialintelligencediabetesmanagementglycemicpatternsfoundationmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) analysis is entering a second generation. Traditional '1.0' methods reduce 1,440 daily glucose readings to summary statistics such as time in range, mean glucose, and variability indices. The proposed '2.0' methods instead treat the entire glucose trace as a functional object and apply functional data analysis, machine learning, and AI to extract temporal patterns, classify events, and predict outcomes. If these methods translate into clinical practice, the authors claim, clinicians will gain a more detailed view of glucose fluctuations and underlying physiology, enabling more personalized diabetes management. The paper also acknowledges that these tools are at early stages and require further study before their clinical value is established.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the shift from discrete summary statistics to functional representation of the glucose time series. In functional data analysis, each day's CGM trajectory is treated as a random function, and tools such as functional principal components and glucodensity—which represents the entire distribution of glucose values as a probability density function—let the analyst quantify the shape, timing, and variability of glucose excursions rather than collapsing them to one number. On top of this, machine-learning architectures (recurrent and convolutional networks, transformers, and foundation models such as Gluformer) learn temporal patterns and make predictions, while large language models can convert the extracted patterns into narrative clinical summaries. These methods carry the argument because they are what produce the claimed extra insight: pattern recognition, subphenotype identification, and individualized forecasting.

What would settle it

A randomized trial or large prospective validation in which CGM 2.0 reports (functional pattern analyses, ML risk predictions, or AI-generated summaries) are compared head-to-head with standard AGP-based care on outcomes such as time-in-range, HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia, or quality of life; finding no added benefit, or a benefit limited to the original research cohorts, would falsify the claim that 2.0 interpretations meaningfully improve personalized diabetes management.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that CGM data analysis is entering a second generation. Generation 1.0 reduces dense glucose time series to summary statistics—mean glucose, time in five glycemic ranges, the Glucose Management Indicator, coefficient of variation, and composite risk scores. Generation 2.0 treats each CGM trace as a whole object: functional data analysis models trajectories as smooth random functions; machine learning and deep learning detect patterns, classify events, and predict outcomes; and foundation models learn generalizable representations from massive CGM datasets. The paper argues that whole-trace methods can reveal temporal structure, identify glycemic phenotypes or subphenotypes, and link curve shape to underlying physiology in ways that summary metrics miss, so that a move from 1.0 to 2.0 should enable more personalized and effective diabetes management. The authors are careful to note that these methods are at early stages of implementation and need further study before their clinical value is established.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the patterns and predictions extracted by functional and AI methods reflect real, clinically actionable physiology and will generalize from the small research cohorts in which they have been tested to broad patient populations; the paper itself states that these approaches are at early stages and require further studies of feasibility and acceptability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clinicians will receive new report formats that combine functional pattern plots, risk scores, and narrative AI summaries, moving beyond the standard three panels of the ambulatory glucose profile.
  • Pattern-based phenotyping can identify distinct glycemic subgroups, enabling treatments tailored to an individual's glucose curve shape rather than just average control.
  • ML models trained on CGM data can predict metabolic subphenotypes such as insulin resistance and beta-cell function from at-home tests, potentially replacing some research-center gold-standard measurements.
  • AI-driven event detection and risk prediction can support real-time decision making, and the first AI-powered automated insulin delivery systems have already been tested.
  • Translating these tools into practice is at an early stage, and feasibility, acceptability, and effect on outcomes still need to be established.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If whole-trace methods prove out, CGM-based clinical trial endpoints may shift from time-in-range to distributional or pattern-based outcome measures, because glucodensity-style summaries compress the entire glycemic distribution into a form that better captures dynamic changes.
  • The same functional and AI machinery could extend CGM's value to prediabetes and healthy wearers, where summary metrics are less informative but shape-based features already stratify risk in research studies.
  • A concrete near-term test would be comparing clinician decision-making accuracy and speed on standard AGP reports alone versus AGP plus an LLM-generated narrative summary in a randomized vignette study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a narrative review/position paper that proposes a new framework, "CGM Data Analysis 2.0," in which traditional summary metrics (CGM Data Analysis 1.0) are supplemented or replaced by functional data analysis, machine learning, and artificial intelligence methods for interpreting continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) time series. It defines four analytical frameworks, compares them in Table 1, and illustrates the new approaches with glucodensity, glucotypes, ML-based prediction of metabolic subphenotypes, LLM summarization of ambulatory glucose profiles, commercial AI-enhanced CGM systems, CGM foundation models, and ML prediction of clinical outcomes. The paper argues that these methods reveal more detailed temporal patterns and, once translated into clinical practice, will enable more personalized and effective diabetes management. It includes caveats in Sections 10 and 13 that the approaches are early stage and that benefits remain to be determined.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would be a timely and useful synthesis, organizing a fast-moving literature into a clear taxonomy that clinicians and researchers could use to understand the shift from summary statistics to functional and AI-based pattern analysis. The manuscript's strengths include its broad literature coverage, the explicit feature comparison in Table 1, generally accurate descriptions of the cited methods, and the inclusion of some caveats about early-stage translation. However, the paper is a perspective, not an evidence synthesis, and the primary cited evidence consists largely of small, exploratory technical-performance studies, several of which come from the authors' own groups. The abstract's and conclusions' clinical-effectiveness claims go beyond what the cited studies can support. With revision to align the claims with the evidence and to address the internal tension between Sections 13 and 14, the paper could serve as a valuable roadmap for the field.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 14 (Conclusions)] The abstract states that CGM Data Analysis 2.0 methods can "enable more personalized and effective diabetes management strategies," and Section 14 predicts that traditional metrics "will gradually be replaced" and that the new methods "will enable truly personalized treatments." The cited evidence, however, supports only technical performance: pattern detection, clustering, prediction accuracy, and LLM summarization. Section 13 explicitly concedes that these approaches "are at early stages of implementation" and that "potential benefits related to diabetes prevention and reducing the risk of the serious complications associated with diabetes remain to be determined," and Section 10 acknowledges LLM errors "could potentially result in inappropriate treatment decisions." The conclusion overstates the evidence. I recommend softening the abstract and conclusions to frame clinical benefits as hypotheses or goals, and adding a short discussion of the full evidence chain needed to support the claim: pattern detection, translation into a treatment decision, implementation, and demonstrated improvement in patient outcomes.
  2. [Section 5 and Section 3] Section 5 states that functional data analysis "is much more powerful than traditional statistical pattern analysis," and Section 3 claims that functional data analysis methods "can more accurately classify nuanced patterns." These comparative claims are presented without quantitative head-to-head evidence, effect sizes, or task-specific scope. Because the entire rationale for moving from 1.0 to 2.0 rests on such superiority, the manuscript should either cite direct comparative studies with concrete metrics or qualify the claim by specifying the tasks and conditions under which functional or AI-based methods have been shown to outperform summary statistics.
  3. [Sections 5, 8-10 and Figures 1, 5, 6] Several flagship examples are small and largely from the authors' own prior work: the glucodensity illustration uses 30 subjects (Figure 1, Cui et al. 2023, described as exploratory), the ML prediction of metabolic subphenotypes uses N=24 and N=29 (Figure 5, Metwally et al. 2024b), and the GPT-4 AGP summarization is evaluated on a single case (Figure 6, Healey et al. 2025). The text presents these as representative of the field's promise without disclosing these sample sizes or the exploratory/single-case nature in the relevant sections. I recommend adding explicit statements of sample size and study design at each figure or example, and tempering the generalizations drawn from them.
  4. [Section 13 vs. Section 14] There is an internal inconsistency between Section 13, which states that the new approaches "are at early stages of implementation" and require further studies to determine feasibility, acceptability, and benefits, and Section 14, which says traditional metrics will soon be "gradually replaced" and that the 2.0 tools "will enable truly personalized treatments." This is not merely a wording issue: readers need a clear statement of whether the paper is describing current evidence or future expectations. Please reconcile these passages so that the conclusions clearly distinguish demonstrated results from projected developments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1 (Introduction)] In the second paragraph, "identity patterns" should be "identify patterns."
  2. [Section 9 heading] The heading contains a typo: "SUBPHENTOYPES" should be "SUBPHENOTYPES."
  3. [Table 1] The "Data Used" row for machine learning states "Large CGM datasets," which contradicts the small sample sizes of several cited ML examples (e.g., Figure 5 with N=24 and N=29). Please clarify that large datasets are needed for robust training and generalization, while the cited studies are exploratory with limited samples.
  4. [Section 14 (Conclusions)] The manuscript uses both "CGM Data Analysis 2.0" and "CGM Pattern Analysis 2.0" in the conclusions; please standardize the terminology for consistency with the title and abstract.
  5. [References] The reference "D. Care et al. Standards of care in diabetes—2023" would be more conventionally cited as the American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee; please update the reference entry for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this narrative review makes programmatic claims supported by cited external validation studies, not by equations or fitted parameters; any evidentiary gap is a translation concern, not circularity.

full rationale

This paper is a narrative review of functional data analysis and AI/ML methods for CGM data, not a derivation of new results from assumptions. It contains no fitted parameters disguised as predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The central claim that CGM Data Analysis 2.0 can provide more detailed understanding and eventually enable more personalized care is presented as a forward-looking synthesis of existing studies. The most heavily featured examples, such as glucotypes, ML-predicted metabolic subphenotypes, LLM summarization, and CGM clustering, are cited from prior work with substantial independent content: they are externally falsifiable studies involving gold-standard clamps, clinician grading, or large cohorts. Even when the cited studies involve the present authors, the review does not reduce a logical derivation to those citations; it reports their findings and limitations. The paper itself explicitly concedes in Section 13 that these approaches 'are at early stages of implementation and require further studies' and that benefits 'remain to be determined,' and Section 10 notes that LLM errors 'could potentially result in inappropriate treatment decisions.' The gap between technical pattern recognition and demonstrated clinical effectiveness is an evidentiary or translational criticism, not a circularity: the review does not define its conclusions into existence, fit parameters to outcomes, or rely on an unverified self-citation as its only support. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the clinical premises that curve shape encodes physiology and that the cited AI and functional-data methods will translate into improved care. The evidence for these assumptions is not quantified in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The shape of the glucose curve reflects underlying pathophysiology.
    Stated in Section 4 as the first physiological rationale for Functional Data Analysis and AI. It is a clinical assumption that two similar curves can represent different physiology, but the paper provides no mechanistic proof.
  • domain assumption Functional data analysis and AI methods are more powerful than traditional summary statistics for extracting clinically relevant patterns.
    This is the paper's thesis, supported only by narrative descriptions of selected studies, not by a formal meta-analysis or quantitative comparison.
  • domain assumption The cited studies are representative and valid evidence for the claimed benefits.
    The paper relies on a convenience sample of literature, with many examples from the authors' own groups. At least one citation is misattributed, so the validity of the evidence base is an assumption rather than a verified fact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CGM Data Analysis 2.0: Functional Data Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3GXACLT

@misc{pith2026250507885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CGM Data Analysis 2.0: Functional Data Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3GXACLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07885}
}
read the original abstract

New methods of CGM data analysis are emerging that are valuable for interpreting CGM patterns and underlying metabolic physiology. These new methods use functional data analysis and artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML). Compared to traditional metrics for evaluating CGM tracing results (CGM Data Analysis 1.0), these new methods, which we refer to as CGM Data Analysis 2.0, can provide a more detailed understanding of glucose fluctuations and trends and enable more personalized and effective diabetes management strategies once translated into practical clinical solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Afentakis, R

    I. Afentakis, R. Unsworth, P. Herrero, N. Oliver, M. Reddy, and P. Georgiou. Development and validation of binary classifiers to predict nocturnal hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 19 0 (1): 0 153--160, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Barua, A

    S. Barua, A. Sabharwal, N. Glantz, C. Conneely, A. Larez, W. Bevier, and D. Kerr. The northeast glucose drift: Stratification of post-breakfast dysglycemia among predominantly hispanic/latino adults at-risk or with type 2 diabetes. EClinicalMedicine, 43, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Battelino, T

    T. Battelino, T. Danne, R. M. Bergenstal, S. A. Amiel, R. Beck, T. Biester, E. Bosi, B. A. Buckingham, W. T. Cefalu, K. L. Close, et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes care, 42 0 (8): 0 1593--1603, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    R. M. Bergenstal, A. J. Ahmann, T. Bailey, R. W. Beck, J. Bissen, B. Buckingham, L. Deeb, R. H. Dolin, S. K. Garg, R. Goland, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile (agp), 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    R. N. Bergman, L. S. Phillips, C. Cobelli, et al. Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose. The Journal of clinical investigation, 68 0 (6): 0 1456--1467, 1981

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    How to Use LibreView With the FreeStyle Libre CGM

    Beyond Type 1 . How to Use LibreView With the FreeStyle Libre CGM . https://beyondtype1.org/how-to-use-libreview-with-the-freestyle-libre-cgm/, 2025. Accessed: April 30, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Care et al

    D. Care et al. Standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes care, 46: 0 S1--S267, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Cederblad, G

    L. Cederblad, G. Eklund, A. Vedal, H. Hill, J. Caballero-Corbalan, J. Hellman, N. Abrahamsson, I. Wahlstr \"o m-Johnsson, P.-O. Carlsson, and D. Espes. Classification of hypoglycemic events in type 1 diabetes using machine learning algorithms. Diabetes Therapy, 14 0 (6): 0 953...

    2023

  3. [11]

    N. B. Chan, W. Li, T. Aung, E. Bazuaye, and R. M. Montero. Time in patterns: machine learning based blood glucose fluctuation pattern recognition for type 1 diabetes management in continuous glucose monitoring. JMIR AI, 2023 0 (2), 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Choudhary, S

    P. Choudhary, S. Genovese, and G. Reach. Blood glucose pattern management in diabetes: creating order from disorder. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 7 0 (6): 0 1575--1584, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    S. L. Cichosz, S. S. Olesen, and M. H. Jensen. Explainable machine-learning models to predict weekly risk of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability in patients with type 1 diabetes based on continuous glucose monitoring. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technolog...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cobry, K

    E. Cobry, K. McFann, L. Messer, V. Gage, B. VanderWel, L. Horton, and H. P. Chase. Timing of meal insulin boluses to achieve optimal postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 12 0 (3): 0 173--177, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    E. H. Cui, A. B. Goldfine, M. Quinlan, D. A. James, and O. Sverdlov. Investigating the value of glucodensity analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data in type 1 diabetes: an exploratory analysis. Frontiers in Clinical Diabetes and Healthcare, 4: 0 1244613, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Czupryniak, G

    L. Czupryniak, G. Dzida, P. Fichna, P. Jarosz-Chobot, J. Gumprecht, T. Klupa, M. Mysliwiec, A. Szadkowska, D. Bomba-Opon, K. Czajkowski, et al. Ambulatory glucose profile (agp) report in daily care of patients with diabetes: practical tips and recommendations. Diabetes Therapy...

    2022

  9. [17]

    R. A. DeFronzo, J. D. Tobin, and R. Andres. Glucose clamp technique: a method for quantifying insulin secretion and resistance. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 237 0 (3): 0 E214, 1979

    1979

  10. [18]

    A. K. Desouter, B. Keymeulen, U. Van de Velde, A. Van Dalem, B. Lapauw, C. De Block, P. Gillard, N. Seret, E. V. Balti, E. R. Van Vooren, et al. Repeated ogtt versus continuous glucose monitoring for predicting development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes: A longitudinal analysis. D...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Dexcom Launches the First Generative AI Platform in Glucose Biosensing , 2024

    Dexcom . Dexcom Launches the First Generative AI Platform in Glucose Biosensing , 2024. URL https://investors.dexcom.com/news/news-details/2024/Dexcom-Launches-the-First-Generative-AI-Platform-in-Glucose-Biosensing/default.aspx

    2024

  12. [20]

    Eghbali-Zarch and S

    M. Eghbali-Zarch and S. Masoud. Application of machine learning in affordable and accessible insulin management for type 1 and 2 diabetes: A comprehensive review. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, page 102868, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gecili, R

    E. Gecili, R. Huang, J. C. Khoury, E. King, M. Altaye, K. Bowers, and R. D. Szczesniak. Functional data analysis and prediction tools for continuous glucose-monitoring studies. Journal of clinical and translational science, 5 0 (1): 0 e51, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Giammarino, R

    F. Giammarino, R. Senanayake, P. Prahalad, D. M. Maahs, and D. Scheinker. A machine learning model for week-ahead hypoglycemia prediction from continuous glucose monitoring data. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, page 19322968241236208, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Glatzer, D

    T. Glatzer, D. Ehrmann, B. Gehr, M. T. Penalba Martinez, J. Onvlee, G. Bucklar, M. Hofer, M. Stangs, and N. Wolf. Clinical usage and potential benefits of a continuous glucose monitoring predict app. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 18 0 (5): 0 1009--1013, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    H. Hall, D. Perelman, A. Breschi, P. Limcaoco, R. Kellogg, T. McLaughlin, and M. Snyder. Glucotypes reveal new patterns of glucose dysregulation. PLoS biology, 16 0 (7): 0 e2005143, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Healey, A

    E. Healey, A. L. M. Tan, K. L. Flint, J. L. Ruiz, and I. Kohane. A case study on using a large language model to analyze continuous glucose monitoring data. Scientific Reports, 15 0 (1): 0 1143, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Herrero, M

    P. Herrero, M. Andorr \`a , N. Babion, H. Bos, M. Koehler, Y. Klopfenstein, E. Lepp \"a aho, P. Lustenberger, A. Peak, C. Ringemann, et al. Enhancing the capabilities of continuous glucose monitoring with a predictive app, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    C. N. Ho, T. Tian, A. T. Ayers, R. E. Aaron, V. Phillips, R. M. Wolf, N. Mathioudakis, T. Dai, and D. C. Klonoff. Qualitative metrics from the biomedical literature for evaluating large language models in clinical decision-making: a narrative review. BMC Medical Informatics an...

    2024

  20. [28]

    P. G. Jacobs, P. Herrero, A. Facchinetti, J. Vehi, B. Kovatchev, M. D. Breton, A. Cinar, K. S. Nikita, F. J. Doyle, J. Bondia, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for improving glycemic control in diabetes: Best practices, pitfalls, and opportunities. IEEE revi...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Y. Jian, M. Pasquier, A. Sagahyroon, and F. Aloul. A machine learning approach to predicting diabetes complications. In Healthcare, volume 9, page 1712. MDPI, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kapoor and Y

    Y. Kapoor and Y. Hasija. Continuous glucose monitoring using machine learning models and iot device data: A meta-analysis. Technology and Health Care, 33 0 (1): 0 577--591, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    D. C. Klonoff, J. Wang, D. Rodbard, M. A. Kohn, C. Li, D. Liepmann, D. Kerr, D. Ahn, A. L. Peters, G. E. Umpierrez, et al. A glycemia risk index (gri) of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia for continuous glucose monitoring validated by clinician ratings. Journal of diabetes scienc...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kovatchev and B

    B. Kovatchev and B. Lobo. Clinically similar clusters of daily continuous glucose monitoring profiles: tracking the progression of glycemic control over time. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 25 0 (8): 0 519--528, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Kovatchev, A

    B. Kovatchev, A. Castillo, E. Pryor, L. L. Kollar, C. L. Barnett, M. D. DeBoer, S. A. Brown, and N. S. Team. Neural-net artificial pancreas: A randomized crossover trial of a first-in-class automated insulin delivery algorithm. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 26 0 (6): 0 3...

    2024

  26. [34]

    B. P. Kovatchev, D. J. Cox, L. A. Gonder-Frederick, D. Young-Hyman, D. Schlundt, and W. Clarke. Assessment of risk for severe hypoglycemia among adults with iddm: validation of the low blood glucose index. Diabetes care, 21 0 (11): 0 1870--1875, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    B. P. Kovatchev, D. J. Cox, L. Gonder-Frederick, and W. L. Clarke. Methods for quantifying self-monitoring blood glucose profiles exemplified by an examination of blood glucose patterns in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 4 0 (3): 0...

    2002

  28. [36]

    B. P. Kovatchev, B. Lobo, C. Fabris, M. Ganji, A. El Fathi, M. D. Breton, L. Kanapka, C. Kollman, T. Battelino, and R. W. Beck. The virtual dcct: Adding continuous glucose monitoring to a landmark clinical trial for prediction of microvascular complications. Diabetes Technolog...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Z. Li, R. Beck, C. Durnwald, A. Carlson, E. Norton, R. Bergenstal, M. Johnson, S. Dunnigan, M. Banfield, K. Krumwiede, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus and perinatal complications. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 26 0 (11): 0...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Y. Lu, D. Liu, Z. Liang, R. Liu, P. Chen, Y. Liu, J. Li, Z. Feng, L. M. Li, B. Sheng, et al. A pretrained transformer model for decoding individual glucose dynamics from continuous glucose monitoring data. National Science Review, page nwaf039, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Lutsker, G

    G. Lutsker, G. Sapir, S. Shilo, J. Merino, A. Godneva, J. R. Greenfield, D. Samocha-Bonet, R. Dhir, F. Gude, S. Mannor, et al. From glucose patterns to health outcomes: A generalizable foundation model for continuous glucose monitor data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11876, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mallinar, A

    N. Mallinar, A. A. Heydari, X. Liu, A. Z. Faranesh, B. Winslow, N. Hammerquist, B. Graef, C. Speed, M. Malhotra, S. Patel, J. L. Prieto, D. McDuff, and A. A. Metwally. A scalable framework for evaluating health language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23339, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Matabuena, A

    M. Matabuena, A. Petersen, J. C. Vidal, and F. Gude. Glucodensities: A new representation of glucose profiles using distributional data analysis. Statistical methods in medical research, 30 0 (6): 0 1445--1464, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Matabuena, M

    M. Matabuena, M. Pazos-Couselo, M. Alonso-Sampedro, C. Fern \'a ndez-Merino, A. Gonz \'a lez-Quintela, and F. Gude. Reproducibility of continuous glucose monitoring results under real-life conditions in an adult population: a functional data analysis. Scientific Reports, 13 0 ...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Matabuena, R

    M. Matabuena, R. Ghosal, J. E. Aguilar, R. Wagner, C. F. Merino, J. S. Castro, V. Zipunnikov, J.-P. Onnela, and F. Gude. Glucodensity functional profiles outperform traditional continuous glucose monitoring metrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00912, 2024

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Medanki, N

    S. Medanki, N. Dommati, H. H. Bodapati, V. N. S. K. Katru, G. Moses, A. Komaraju, N. S. Donepudi, D. Yalamanchili, J. Sateesh, and P. Turimerla. Artificial intelligence powered glucose monitoring and controlling system: Pumping module. World Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1...

    2024

  37. [45]

    A. A. Metwally, P. Mehta, and M. P. Snyder. Predicting glucotypes in prediabetes via wearables and artificial intelligence. Diabetes Digital Health, Telehealth, and Artificial Intelligence, pages 287--301, 2024 a

    2024

  38. [46]

    A. A. Metwally, D. Perelman, H. Park, Y. Wu, A. Jha, S. Sharp, A. Celli, E. Ayhan, F. Abbasi, A. L. Gloyn, et al. Prediction of metabolic subphenotypes of type 2 diabetes via continuous glucose monitoring and machine learning. Nature Biomedical Engineering, pages 1--18, 2024 b

    2024

  39. [47]

    A. A. Metwally, A. A. Heydari, D. McDuff, A. Solot, Z. Esmaeilpour, A. Z. Faranesh, M. Zhou, D. B. Savage, C. Heneghan, S. Patel, C. Speed, and J. L. Prieto. Insulin resistance prediction from wearables and routine blood biomarkers, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.03784

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Mittal, M

    R. Mittal, M. B. Weiss, A. Rendon, S. Shafazand, J. R. Lemos, and K. Hirani. Harnessing machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence, for early detection and diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: A systematic review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26 0 (9): 0 3935, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Montaser and V

    E. Montaser and V. N. Shah. Prediction of incident diabetic retinopathy in adults with type 1 diabetes using machine learning approach: An exploratory study. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, page 19322968241292369, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Nguyen, J

    M. Nguyen, J. Han, E. K. Spanakis, B. P. Kovatchev, and D. C. Klonoff. A review of continuous glucose monitoring-based composite metrics for glycemic control. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 22 0 (8): 0 613--622, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    H. Park, A. A. Metwally, A. Delfarah, Y. Wu, D. Perelman, M. Rodgar, C. Mayer, A. Celli, T. McLaughlin, E. Mignot, et al. Lifestyle profiling using wearables and prediction of glucose metabolism in individuals with normoglycemia or prediabetes. medRxiv, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Piersanti, F

    A. Piersanti, F. Giurato, C. G \"o bl, L. Burattini, A. Tura, and M. Morettini. Software packages and tools for the analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 25 0 (1): 0 69--85, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    E. O. Pyzer-Knapp, M. Manica, P. Staar, L. Morin, P. Ruch, T. Laino, J. R. Smith, and A. Curioni. Foundation models for materials discovery--current state and future directions. npj Computational Materials, 11 0 (1): 0 61, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    T. X. Quan, R. CookAlex, et al. Stratification of patients with diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring profiles and machine learning. Health Data Science, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Scheiner

    G. Scheiner. Cgm retrospective data analysis. Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 18 0 (S2): 0 S2--14, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Sergazinov, M

    R. Sergazinov, M. Armandpour, and I. Gaynanova. Gluformer: Transformer-based personalized glucose forecasting with uncertainty quantification. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    V. N. Shah and D. Kerr. What is a normal glucose value? The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2025

    2025

  50. [58]

    J. Shao, Y. Pan, W.-B. Kou, H. Feng, Y. Zhao, K. Zhou, and S. Zhong. Generalization of a deep learning model for continuous glucose monitoring--based hypoglycemia prediction: Algorithm development and validation study. JMIR Medical Informatics, 12: 0 e56909, 2024 a

    2024

  51. [59]

    X. Shao, J. Lu, R. Tao, L. Wu, Y. Wang, W. Lu, H. Li, J. Zhou, and X. Yu. Clinically relevant stratification of patients with type 2 diabetes by using continuous glucose monitoring data. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 26 0 (6): 0 2082--2091, 2024 b

    2024

  52. [60]

    Shomali, S

    M. Shomali, S. Liu, A. Kumbara, A. Iyer, and G. Gao. The development and potential applications of an automated method for detecting and classifying continuous glucose monitoring patterns. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, page 19322968241232378, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    T. A. R. Sure. Enhancing continuous glucose monitoring: The role of ai in supporting agp interpretation. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, page 19322968251337479, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    E. Swensen. Adding ai to artificial pancreas enhances efficiency, study finds. UVA Health Newsroom, may 2024. URL https://newsroom.uvahealth.com/2024/05/02/adding-ai-artificial-pancreas-enhances-efficiency-study-finds/. Accessed: April 30, 2025

    2024

  55. [63]

    B. J. Swihart, B. Caffo, B. D. James, M. Strand, B. S. Schwartz, and N. M. Punjabi. Lasagna plots: a saucy alternative to spaghetti plots. Epidemiology, 21 0 (5): 0 621--625, 2010

    2010

  56. [64]

    R. Tao, X. Yu, J. Lu, Y. Shen, W. Lu, W. Zhu, Y. Bao, H. Li, and J. Zhou. Multilevel clustering approach driven by continuous glucose monitoring data for further classification of type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 9 0 (1), 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    D. N. Thyde, A. Mohebbi, H. Bengtsson, M. L. Jensen, and M. M rup. Machine learning-based adherence detection of type 2 diabetes patients on once-daily basal insulin injections. Journal of diabetes science and technology, 15 0 (1): 0 98--108, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    W. J. van den Brink, T. J. van den Broek, S. Wopereis, S. Difrancesco, F. A. van der Horst, and I. M. de Hoogh. Feasibility of digital phenotyping based on continuous glucose monitoring to support personalized lifestyle medicine in type 2 diabetes. Maturitas, 194: 0 108188, 2025

    2025

  59. [67]

    Y. Wu, B. Ehlert, A. A. Metwally, D. Perelman, H. Park, A. W. Brooks, F. Abbasi, B. Michael, A. Celli, C. Bejikian, E. Ayhan, Y. Lu, S. M. Lancaster, D. Hornburg, L. Ramirez, D. Bogumil, S. Pollock, F. Wong, D. Bradley, G. Gutjahr, E. S. Rangan, T. Wang, L. McGuire, P. V. Rang...

    2025

  60. [68]

    P. Yu, H. Xu, X. Hu, and C. Deng. Leveraging generative ai and large language models: a comprehensive roadmap for healthcare integration. In Healthcare, volume 11, page 2776. MDPI, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.