ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2024
Development of a three-dimensional scoring model for the assessment of continuous glucose monitoring data in type 1 diabetes.
Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A CGM-Based model for predicting hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes patients with TIR in target.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the improvements in diabetes management by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) it is difficult to capture the complexity of CGM data in one metric. We aimed to develop a clinically relevant multidimensional scoring model with the capacity to identify the most alarming CGM episodes and/or patients from a large cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsRetrospective CGM data from 2017 to 2020 available in electronic medical records were collected from n=613 individuals with type 1 diabetes (total 82 114 days). A scoring model was developed based on three metrics; glycemic variability percentage, low blood glucose index and high blood glucose index. Values for each dimension were normalized to a numeric score between 0-100. To identify the most representative score for an extended time period, multiple ways to combine the mean score of each dimension were evaluated. Correlations of the scoring model with CGM metrics were computed. The scoring model was compared with interpretations of a clinical expert board (CEB).
resultsThe dimension of hypoglycemia must be weighted to be representative, whereas the other two can be represented by their overall mean. The scoring model correlated well with established CGM metrics. Applying a score of ≥80 as the cut-off for identifying time periods with a 'true' target fulfillment (ie, reaching all targets for CGM metrics) resulted in an accuracy of 93.4% and a specificity of 97.1%. The accuracy of the scoring model when compared with the CEB was high for identifying the most alarming CGM curves within each dimension of glucose control (overall 86.5%).
conclusionsOur scoring model captures the complexity of CGM data and can identify both the most alarming dimension of glycemia and the individuals in most urgent need of assistance. This could become a valuable tool for population management at diabetes clinics to enable healthcare providers to stratify care to the patients in greatest need of clinical attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.