ArticleOpen life sciences2026
Transforming hypoglycemia prediction in adult type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis for precision care.
Article in Open life sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients require lifelong insulin therapy; however, iatrogenic hypoglycemia remains a major clinical challenge, with high incidence in adults. This study evaluated the performance, methodological rigor, and clinical utility of hypoglycemia risk prediction models for adult T1DM patients to inform evidence-based risk management strategies. Following Cochrane framework and PRISMA guidelines, 18 studies were identified. Data extraction and bias assessment were conducted using the PROBAST tool. The mean area under the curve (AUC) across individual models was 0.85. Meta-analysis of AUC values revealed a pooled AUC of 0.88 (95 % CI: 0.88-0.89), indicating moderate-to-good predictive accuracy. Substantial heterogeneity was observed (
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.