ArticleDiabetes research and clinical practice2026
Ultra-processed foods and continuous glucose monitoring metrics in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Article in Diabetes research and clinical practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimWe examined associations between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumption and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived metrics using individual- and food-level measures of UPFs in adults with T2D.
methodsAdults with T2D (n = 190) completed two 24-hour dietary recalls and wore blinded CGM devices for 14 days. Foods were classified by the NOVA system. Individual-level UPF intake was defined as the proportion of total energy or grams derived from UPFs (energy-weighted). Food-level intake was assessed as Mean UPF Energy (%) and Mean UPF Gram (%) across all reported food items (item-weighted). CGM outcomes included time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), glucose management indicator (GMI), and coefficient of variation. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors.
resultsAfter adjustment, higher Mean UPF Energy (%) was associated with lower odds of achieving TIR > 70% (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.92) and higher odds of TAR ≥ 25% (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.06-2.47) and GMI ≥ 7% (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.03-2.35). Individual-level UPF intake was not significantly associated with CGM-derived outcomes.
conclusionsHigher UPF energy content at the food level was associated with poorer CGM-derived glycemic outcomes. Food-level UPF measures may more closely reflect CGM-derived glycemic metrics than individual-level measures.
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.