Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

GlucoTune: A Unified Framework for Blood Glucose Preprocessing, Forecasting, and Benchmarking in Diabetes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GlucoTune claims that portable YAML preprocessing configurations can make blood-glucose forecasting experiments reproducible from raw datasets without redistributing sensitive data.

desk verdict A genuinely useful engineering contribution whose central reproducibility claim rests on code not included in the manuscript; peer-review it, but demand the artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21117 v1 pith:EP3XL2TW submitted 2026-07-23 cs.LG cs.AI

Davide Marelli , Giorgia Rigamonti , Mirko Paolo Barbato , Paolo Napoletano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords bloodglucosepredictionreproducibilitypreprocessingpipelineYAMLconfigurationbenchmarkingtimeseriesforecastingtype1diabetescontinuousmonitoring
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

GlucoTune claims that the reproducibility crisis in blood-glucose forecasting can be solved by standardizing the entire experimental workflow—preprocessing, model training, and evaluation—so that experiments can be rerun from the original datasets using portable YAML configuration files. The point is to let researchers share a preprocessing recipe rather than the preprocessed data itself, which privacy rules often forbid. The framework wraps four public type 1 diabetes datasets, offers a library of baseline models spanning statistical, machine-learning, and deep-learning families, and publishes a leaderboard with clinical and computational metrics. If the claim holds, comparing two forecasting models becomes meaningful because differences can be attributed to the models, not to divergent preprocessing choices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the portable YAML preprocessing configuration, which fully specifies a pipeline of modular operations: dataset wrapper, missing-data handling, feature synchronization and cleanup, event-to-continuity transform, time-series cropping, prediction-horizon segmentation, splitting strategy, smoothing, SMOTE augmentation, and normalization, plus the evaluation protocol. It works together with standardized dataset wrappers that unify naming and formats across heterogeneous sources, and a model library whose training and evaluation loop consumes the same pipeline output. The YAML file is the reproducibility unit: it replaces redistribution of sensitive preprocessed data wit

What would settle it

Take a published GlucoTune YAML configuration and the corresponding original dataset, run it in a fresh environment with pinned dependency versions, and compare the generated train, validation, and test indices, normalized tensors, and leaderboard metrics to the published values; any mismatch beyond floating-point tolerance would falsify the reproducibility claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single configurable pipeline can standardize every decision that currently varies across studies—missing-data imputation, feature alignment, event handling, prediction-horizon segmentation, splitting, smoothing, augmentation, and normalization—and encode that pipeline in a portable YAML file. Because the YAML file, not the data, is shared, a lab with access to the original dataset can recreate the exact train, validation, and test splits and inputs used in a published experiment. The paper also builds a model library and a benchmark leaderboard that reports RMSE, MAE, MARD, time gain, hypo/hyperglycemia sensitivity and specificity, and model complexity, ar

Load-bearing premise

The reproducibility mechanism assumes every researcher can obtain the original public datasets under the same terms and run the same YAML pipeline; if data access is restricted or dataset files change, sharing configurations no longer reproduces the experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can include a YAML configuration as supplementary material, letting others reproduce preprocessing exactly without transferring patient data.
  • The leaderboard allows direct comparison of models across datasets and prediction horizons under identical preprocessing, making reported differences more trustworthy.
  • The comprehensive metric set—RMSE, MAE, MARD, time gain, event sensitivity and specificity, and complexity—gives reviewers and clinicians a fuller picture than single-error metrics.
  • The modular wrappers make adding a new dataset or model a matter of implementing a small interface, so the benchmark can grow with the field.
  • The benchmarking results suggest preprocessing choices and dataset characteristics can dominate model architecture in determining performance, reinforcing the need for standardized protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

  • [Editorial inference] Beyond the paper's direct claims, the YAML-as-reproducibility-unit pattern could be adapted to other privacy-sensitive biomedical time-series domains, such as ECG or ICU monitoring, where sharing raw data is restricted but sharing preprocessing recipes is not.
  • [Editorial inference] The leaderboard could evolve into a living community benchmark if configurations are versioned and dataset access is managed centrally, but that would require governance the paper does not address.
  • [Editorial inference] The reported finding that performance is strongly influenced by experimental setting suggests meta-analyses of glucose-forecasting papers should weight studies by preprocessing similarity, not just reported accuracy.
  • [Editorial inference] A testable extension: systematically ablate each preprocessing stage (with and without SMOTE, different gap thresholds, different smoothing settings) across datasets to quantify how much each choice moves RMSE and event sensitivity; the framework makes this direct.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. GlucoTune is presented as a modular Python framework that standardizes the complete experimental workflow for blood glucose time-series research: configurable preprocessing pipelines defined in portable YAML files, standardized wrappers for four public T1D datasets, a large model library, a benchmarking leaderboard with multi-metric evaluation, and a GUI. The paper claims that sharing YAML configurations enables other researchers to reproduce experiments directly from original datasets without redistributing sensitive preprocessed data. The experimental section reports a predictive benchmark on OhioT1DM and DiaTrend at 30- and 60-minute prediction horizons with and without SMOTE augmentation, comparing top models per family, plus a usability study of the GUI (n=11, mean SUS 80.91).

Significance. If the framework is actually released, versioned, and deterministic, GlucoTune would make a genuinely useful contribution: it addresses a real pain point in CGM-based research, where preprocessing heterogeneity and data-sharing restrictions block reproducibility. The design is sensible, the preprocessing modularity is broad, and the multi-metric evaluation plan (RMSE, MAE, MARD, TG, sensitivity/specificity, error grids, complexity measures) is more comprehensive than what is typically reported. The strongest contribution is the reproducibility-by-configuration idea, which would allow sharing experimental setups without sharing patient-level data. However, that contribution is currently a promise, not a demonstrated result: the manuscript contains no code snapshot, no YAML schema or example, no version identifier, and no determinism statement. The benchmark also lacks any measure of run-to-run variability. With those gaps filled, the paper could be accepted; as submitted, the central claim is unverifiable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II, first paragraph; Section III-A; Abstract] The central reproducibility claim is not verifiable from the manuscript. The paper repeatedly states that YAML configuration files enable experiments to be reproduced 'directly from the original datasets,' but no YAML configuration, schema, code snapshot, package version, commit hash, or dependency pinning is included. The only pointer is an external URL (unimib-islab.github.io/glucotune), which is not part of the manuscript. A reader cannot check whether the same YAML plus the same public dataset produces the same preprocessed data and model outputs. This is load-bearing because the paper's main contribution is precisely this reproducibility mechanism. Please provide a permanent artifact (e.g., Zenodo DOI), at least one example YAML configuration in the paper or appendix, and a clear statement about random seeds, package versions, and determinism of preprocessing and training.
  2. [Section III-A, Table I] Table I reports single-point results to two decimal places for RMSE, MAE, MARD, TG, sensitivity, and specificity, but no error bars, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are given. For neural models with random initialization and data-dependent training, single-run differences of 0.1–0.3 mg/dL RMSE may be within noise. The family-level model selection (retaining only the top-performing neural model per family) also makes cross-family comparison harder to interpret. Please report variance over multiple seeds/splits, or at least justify why single-run results are sufficient for the benchmark's conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, paragraph before Table I] The paragraph 'Model selection is performed at the family level ... retaining only the top-performing models' is duplicated verbatim. Please remove the duplicate.
  2. [Table I header] The table header is malformed: 'PH = 30 min PH = 30 min' repeats the horizon label, and the units line '(mg/dL) (mg/dL) (%) ...' is not properly aligned. Please reformat the header so each metric group is clearly associated with its PH column.
  3. [Section II.A and Introduction] The text repeatedly renders 'YAML' as 'Y AML' (e.g., 'portable Y AML configuration files'). This is likely a LaTeX/typing artifact and should be fixed throughout.
  4. [Section III.B] The usability study reports a mean SUS of 80.91 from 11 participants, but no participant demographics, programming background, prior experience with diabetes tools, or task completion times are given. Given the small sample, please temper the claim that GlucoTune is 'highly usable' and report the study's limitations.
  5. [Section II.A.1] The paper states the framework supports four public datasets, but the benchmark uses only OhioT1DM and DiaTrend. Please clarify why T1DiabetesGranada and T1DEXI are not included in the experimental demonstration, or state explicitly that they are supported but not benchmarked in this paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GlucoTune is a software-framework paper whose claims are demonstrated by running the tool, not by a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not present a mathematical derivation, fitted prediction, or uniqueness theorem. Its central claim is that a configurable preprocessing and benchmarking framework enables reproducible experiments from original datasets; this is supported by a benchmark table and a usability study, both generated by using the framework itself. Using a tool to demonstrate the tool is a normal software-evaluation pattern, not a circular reduction: there is no equation in which an output is defined as an input, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The two self-citations ([12], [30]) support contextual choices (feature selection and metric selection) rather than the framework's core reproducibility claim. The manuscript does rely on external resources (a GitHub Pages URL for the leaderboard and code) that are not included or versioned, so the reproducibility claim is not fully verifiable from the paper alone; however, that is a verifiability and engineering limitation, not a circularity of derivation. Under the stated rubric, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

No fitted parameters are used to derive the central claim; benchmark hyperparameters are user-configurable choices. The axioms are practical assumptions about data access and evaluation validity. GlucoTune is a software artifact, not a postulated entity with independent falsifiable handles.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Public datasets OhioT1DM, DiaTrend, T1DiabetesGranada, and T1DEXI remain accessible and licensed for research use, so YAML-only configs are sufficient to reproduce experiments.
    Introduced in Section II-A.1; if a data owner restricts access or changes terms, reproduction from original data fails.
  • domain assumption Standard ML evaluation practice — temporal split and MSE loss — adequately measures forecasting performance for the stated benchmarking purpose.
    Section III-A uses a single temporal split without leakage analysis or statistical replication.
  • domain assumption The SUS benchmark value of 68 from a 500-system study is an appropriate reference for judging the GUI usable.
    Section III-B compares the n=11 user study to this external norm.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GlucoTune: A Unified Framework for Blood Glucose Preprocessing, Forecasting, and Benchmarking in Diabetes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP3XL2TW

@misc{pith2026260721117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GlucoTune: A Unified Framework for Blood Glucose Preprocessing, Forecasting, and Benchmarking in Diabetes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP3XL2TW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21117}
}
read the original abstract

Preprocessing blood glucose time-series data is a critical yet often overlooked step in developing data-driven methods for diabetes management, particularly for type 1 diabetes. The lack of standardized preprocessing workflows and evaluation protocols hinders reproducibility and complicates fair comparison across studies. These challenges are further exacerbated by data-sharing restrictions, as privacy and licensing constraints often prevent the redistribution of preprocessed medical datasets. To address these limitations, we present GlucoTune, a comprehensive and extensible framework for reproducible experimentation with blood glucose time-series data. The framework standardizes the entire experimental workflow, from preprocessing to model evaluation, enabling reproducible experiments directly from the original datasets. Reproducible preprocessing is achieved through configurable pipelines defined in portable YAML configuration files, ensuring consistent data handling without distributing sensitive preprocessed data. Beyond preprocessing, GlucoTune provides a unified interface for implementing, training, and evaluating blood glucose prediction models. The framework integrates public datasets through standardized wrappers and provides a curated collection of state-of-the-art blood glucose prediction and general time-series forecasting methods, while remaining readily extensible to additional datasets, preprocessing strategies, and forecasting models. To promote transparent and consistent evaluation, GlucoTune includes a benchmarking leaderboard that reports results across datasets, preprocessing configurations, and forecasting methods, enabling systematic comparison of experimental settings. We demonstrate the effectiveness of GlucoTune through comprehensive experiments and assess its usability in a user study.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus,

    A. D. Association, “Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus,” Diabetes care, vol. 33, no. Supplement 1, pp. S62–S69, 2010. 3https://fondazioneanthem.it/

    2010

  2. [2]

    Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes,

    M. Kotagal, R. G. Symons, I. B. Hirsch, G. E. Umpierrez, E. P. Dellinger, E. T. Farrokhi, D. R. Flumet al., “Perioperative hyperglycemia and risk of adverse events among patients with and without diabetes,”Annals of surgery, vol. 261, no. 1, pp. 97–103, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Hypoglycemia in diabetes,

    P. E. Cryer, S. N. Davis, and H. Shamoon, “Hypoglycemia in diabetes,” Diabetes care, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1902–1912, 2003

    1902

  4. [4]

    Arima models,

    R. H. Shumway, D. S. Stoffer, R. H. Shumway, and D. S. Stoffer, “Arima models,”Time series analysis and its applications: with R examples, pp. 75–163, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Blood glucose level prediction as time-series modeling using sequence-to-sequence neural networks,

    A. Bhimireddy, P. Sinha, B. Oluwalade, J. W. Gichoya, and S. Purkayastha, “Blood glucose level prediction as time-series modeling using sequence-to-sequence neural networks,” inKDH@ECAI. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    A deep learning approach for blood glucose prediction of type 1 diabetes,

    J. Freiburghaus, A. Rizzotti, and F. Albertetti, “A deep learning approach for blood glucose prediction of type 1 diabetes,” inProceedings of the Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Healthcare Data co-located with 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2020), 29-30 August 2020, Santiago de Compostela,...

    2020

  7. [7]

    Blood glucose prediction with variance estimation using recurrent neural networks,

    J. Martinsson, A. Schliep, B. Eliasson, and O. Mogren, “Blood glucose prediction with variance estimation using recurrent neural networks,” Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 4, pp. 1–18, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Convolutional recurrent neural networks for glucose prediction,

    K. Li, J. Daniels, C. Liu, P. Herrero, and P. Georgiou, “Convolutional recurrent neural networks for glucose prediction,”IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 603–613, 2019

    2019

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Bgformer: An improved informer model to enhance blood glucose prediction,

    Y . Xue, S. Guan, and W. Jia, “Bgformer: An improved informer model to enhance blood glucose prediction,”Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 157, p. 104715, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A hybrid transformer-lstm model apply to glucose prediction,

    Q. Bian, A. As’ arry, X. Cong, K. A. b. M. Rezali, and R. M. 8 IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS K. b. Raja Ahmad, “A hybrid transformer-lstm model apply to glucose prediction,”PLoS One, vol. 19, no. 9, p. e0310084, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Deep multitask learning by stacked long short-term memory for predicting personalized blood glucose concentration,

    M. M. H. Shuvo and S. K. Islam, “Deep multitask learning by stacked long short-term memory for predicting personalized blood glucose concentration,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1612–1623, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Improving detection of type-1 diabetes adverse events using gru networks,

    G. Rigamonti, M. P. Barbato, D. Marelli, and P. Napoletano, “Improving detection of type-1 diabetes adverse events using gru networks,” in2024 IEEE 8th Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry Innovation (RTSI). IEEE, 2024, pp. 79–84

    2024

  5. [13]

    Predicting adverse events for patients with type-1 diabetes via self-supervised learning,

    X. Zheng, S. Ji, and C. Wu, “Predicting adverse events for patients with type-1 diabetes via self-supervised learning,” inICASSP 2024- 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1526–1530

    2024

  6. [14]

    Prediction of blood glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes via lstm neural networks,

    C. Rodriguez Leon, O. Banos, O. Fernandez Mora, A. Martinez Bedmar, F. Rufo Jimenez, and C. Villalonga, “Prediction of blood glucose levels in patients with type 1 diabetes via lstm neural networks,” in International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Springer, 202...

    2023

  7. [15]

    A deep learning approach to diabetic blood glucose prediction,

    H. N. Mhaskar, S. V . Pereverzyev, and M. D. Van der Walt, “A deep learning approach to diabetic blood glucose prediction,”Frontiers in applied mathematics and statistics, vol. 3, p. 14, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Adversarial multi- source transfer learning in healthcare: Application to glucose prediction for diabetic people,

    M. De Bois, M. A. El Yacoubi, and M. Ammi, “Adversarial multi- source transfer learning in healthcare: Application to glucose prediction for diabetic people,”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 199, p. 105874, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    The OhioT1DM Dataset for Blood Glucose Level Prediction: Update 2020,

    B. R. Marling C., “The OhioT1DM Dataset for Blood Glucose Level Prediction: Update 2020,”CEUR workshop proceedings, pp. 71–74, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Diatrend: A dataset from advanced diabetes technology to enable development of novel analytic solutions,

    T. Prioleau, A. Bartolome, R. Comi, and C. Stanger, “Diatrend: A dataset from advanced diabetes technology to enable development of novel analytic solutions,”Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 556, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Glupredkit: Development and user evaluation of a standardization software for blood glucose prediction,

    M. K. Wolff, S. Royston, A. L. Fougner, H. G. Schaathun, M. Steinert, and R. V olden, “Glupredkit: Development and user evaluation of a standardization software for blood glucose prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08915, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Interpreting blood glucose data with r package iglu,

    S. Broll, J. Urbanek, D. Buchanan, E. Chun, J. Muschelli, N. M. Punjabi, and I. Gaynanova, “Interpreting blood glucose data with r package iglu,” PloS one, vol. 16, no. 4, p. e0248560, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Glucostats: an efficient python library for glucose time series feature extraction and visual analysis,

    P. Peiro-Corbacho, F. J. Lara-Abelenda, D. Chushig-Muzo, A. M. W¨agner, C. Granja, and C. Soguero-Ruiz, “Glucostats: an efficient python library for glucose time series feature extraction and visual analysis,”BMC bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 230, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Continuous glucose monitoring time series data analysis: a time series analysis pack- age for continuous glucose monitoring data,

    J. Shao, Z. Liu, S. Li, B. Wu, Z. Nie, Y . Li, and K. Zhou, “Continuous glucose monitoring time series data analysis: a time series analysis pack- age for continuous glucose monitoring data,”Journal of Computational Biology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 112–116, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    T1diabetesgranada: a longitudinal multi-modal dataset of type 1 diabetes mellitus,

    C. Rodriguez-Leon, M. D. Aviles-Perez, O. Banos, M. Quesada- Charneco, P. J. Lopez-Ibarra Lozano, C. Villalonga, and M. Munoz- Torres, “T1diabetesgranada: a longitudinal multi-modal dataset of type 1 diabetes mellitus,”Scientific Data, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 916, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    M. C. Riddell, Z. Li, R. L. Gal, P. Calhoun, P. G. Jacobs, M. A. Clements, C. K. Martin, F. J. Doyle III, S. R. Patton, J. R. Castleet al., “Examining the acute glycemic effects of different types of structured exercise sessions in type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting: the ...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Feature transformation for efficient blood glucose prediction in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients,

    H. Butt, I. Khosa, and M. A. Iftikhar, “Feature transformation for efficient blood glucose prediction in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients,” Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 340, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Deep transfer learning and data augmentation improve glucose levels prediction in type 2 diabetes patients,

    Y . Deng, L. Lu, L. Aponte, A. M. Angelidi, V . Novak, G. E. Karniadakis, and C. S. Mantzoros, “Deep transfer learning and data augmentation improve glucose levels prediction in type 2 diabetes patients,”NPJ Digital Medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 109, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,

    N. V . Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,”Journal of artificial intel- ligence research, vol. 16, pp. 321–357, 2002

    2002

  20. [28]

    A data-driven personalized approach to predict blood glucose levels in type-1 diabetes patients exercising in free-living conditions,

    A. Neumann, Y . Zghal, M. A. Cremona, A. Hajji, M. Morin, and M. Rekik, “A data-driven personalized approach to predict blood glucose levels in type-1 diabetes patients exercising in free-living conditions,” Computers in biology and medicine, vol. 190, p. 110015, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Dilated recurrent neural networks for glucose forecasting in type 1 diabetes,

    T. Zhu, K. Li, J. Chen, P. Herrero, and P. Georgiou, “Dilated recurrent neural networks for glucose forecasting in type 1 diabetes,”Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 308–324, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lightweight sequential transformers for blood glucose level prediction in type-1 diabetes,

    M. P. Barbato, G. Rigamonti, D. Marelli, and P. Napoletano, “Lightweight sequential transformers for blood glucose level prediction in type-1 diabetes,”IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose,

    W. Clarke, C. DC, L. Gonder-Frederick, W. Carter, and S. Pohl, “Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose,”Diabetes care, vol. 10, pp. 622–8, 09 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

    Technical aspects of the parkes error grid,

    A. Pf ¨utzner, D. C. Klonoff, S. Pardo, and J. L. Parkes, “Technical aspects of the parkes error grid,”Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1275–1281, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,

    J. Brookeet al., “Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale,”Usability evaluation in industry, vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4–7, 1996

    1996

  26. [34]

    Measuring usability with the system usability scale (sus),

    J. Sauro, “Measuring usability with the system usability scale (sus),”

  27. [2011]

    Available: http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php

    [Online]. Available: http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.