ArticleScientific reports2026
Management insulin dosing for diabetes using a partially observable Markov decision process with missing data imputation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missing data in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) poses a significant challenge for applying sequential decision-making models to diabetes management. This study evaluates how missing-data imputation affects downstream Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP)-based policy outputs using real CGM trajectories from the Stanford Continuous Glucose Monitoring Database. Three imputation methods are compared: mean imputation, linear interpolation, and a bridge-based adjusted Metropolis-Hastings (M-H) algorithm. The adjusted M-H algorithm incorporates a local temporal bridge, Markovian state-transition information, and a smoothness constraint to generate model-compatible imputations. Numerical experiments are conducted under two missingness scenarios, random missingness and block missingness, with missing rates of 5%, 15%, and 25%. The methods are evaluated using mean squared imputation error (MSIE), policy disagreement rate, and absolute reward gap relative to the complete-data POMDP benchmark. The results show that mean imputation produces substantially larger reconstruction errors and greater downstream POMDP deviations across missingness scenarios. Linear interpolation and adjusted M-H both preserve CGM trajectories and POMDP-derived policy outputs much better than mean imputation. Linear interpolation achieves slightly lower global MSIE under random missingness, whereas adjusted M-H shows comparable POMDP-level performance and local advantages in nonlinear postprandial trajectories and block-missing segments. These findings suggest that temporally informed imputation methods are preferable to mean imputation for incomplete CGM data, and that adjusted M-H provides a model-compatible alternative for preserving sequential decision outputs under partially observed glucose trajectories.
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.