ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Development and Validation of Diabetes Interpreter, a Mobile Application-Based Tool for Point-of-Care Evaluation of Children with Diabetes.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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.
- Development and Validation of Puberty Interpreter, a Mobile Clinical Decision-Support Tool for Pubertal Disorders.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate Diabetes Interpreter, a mobile application-based tool for point-of-care guidance for classifying pediatric and adolescent diabetes.
methodsThe Diabetes Interpreter recommends diagnosis and evaluation based on clinical parameters (age at diagnosis, disease duration, presentation, and insulin requirements). The validation involved comparing the guidance given by the Diabetes Interpreter, two pediatric endocrinologists, one adult endocrinologist, a pediatrician, and a pediatric trainee with the clinical diagnoses of 302 children and adolescents with diabetes treated at authors' Endocrinology Clinic.
resultsThe Diabetes Interpreter agreed highly with clinical diagnoses and guidance (596 out of 604, 98.6%). The concordance rates for Pediatric Endocrinologist I (546; 90.4%) and Pediatric Endocrinologist II (491; 81.3%) exceeded those of the adult endocrinologist (405; 67.1%), pediatrician (287; 47.5%), and pediatric trainee (258; 42.7%). The adult endocrinologist missed the diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes without a suggestion for autoimmune assessment in 15 subjects (6%), while the pediatrician missed it in 16 subjects (6.4%), and the pediatric trainee in 33 (13.2%). Following the guidance of the Diabetes Interpreter could have potentially reduced 31.5%, 51.1%, and 55.9% of the discordances observed in the adult endocrinologist, pediatrician, and pediatric trainee, respectively. The pediatric trainee (250, 100%), the pediatrician (245, 98%), and the adult endocrinologist (124, 49.6%) recommended workups for a more significant proportion of subjects who did not require investigations compared to the Diabetes Interpreter (3, 1.2%).
conclusionsThe high concordance score of the Diabetes Interpreter underscores its importance in point-of-care guidance for assessing children and adolescents with diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40844756What 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.