ArticleJMIR diabetes2026
Integration of Continuous Glucose Monitoring With HbA
Article in JMIR diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a convenient tool to evaluate glycemic status but its ability to detect individuals at risk for type 2 diabetes is limited. Objective: Exploiting the glycemic variability captured in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we used a well-characterized Asian cohort study from Singapore to assess whether utilizing CGM features in a machine learning model can improve the detection of prediabetes as compared to using HbA1c alone. Methods: In this study, 406 nondiabetic Asian participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and had their fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose concentrations measured, together with HbA1c, to classify them as with normoglycemia or prediabetes. They also wore a CGM sensor for 14 days. CGM profile features were extracted and prediction models were constructed with random subsampling validation to evaluate predictive efficacy. The use of CGM and HbA1c data alone or in combination was assessed for the ability to correctly distinguish prediabetes from normoglycemia. Results: In this cohort (N=406), 189 (46.6%) individuals had prediabetes. The majority of the cohort were women (n=236, 58.1%) and of Chinese ethnicity (n=267, 65.8%). Those with prediabetes were slightly older, heavier, and had higher glucose levels with more variability than the normoglycemia group. A 2-step approach was used where those with HbA1c ≥5.7% were automatically categorized as having prediabetes; the model then focused on the prediction capability of the CGM features among individuals with HbA1c <5.7%. The prediction models with CGM outperformed the benchmark for comparison defined by HbA1c ≥5.7%, where they yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.866-0.876, with a lower specificity of 78%-80% but a vastly improved sensitivity of 76%-78%. Conclusions: Adding CGM to HbA1c in a 2-step approach greatly improved the sensitivity of detecting prediabetes in an Asian population. Given the benefits to optimizing lifestyle behaviors and its growing acceptability among the nondiabetic population, CGM is a promising alternative for type 2 diabetes mellitus risk screening.
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.