ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Deep learning for blood glucose prediction: Reproducibility challenges and factors affecting differential performance.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood glucose prediction is a critical component of next-generation diabetes technologies, such as artificial pancreas systems, where reliable performance is essential for safety and effectiveness. Although deep learning methods have achieved promising advances in this area, a critical gap remains in understanding the reproducibility and generalizability of these methods. To contextualize the gap, this study reviewed 67 recent papers that proposed a deep learning method for glucose prediction to identify key reproducibility challenges. Next, we adopted a standardized framework, encompassing technical, statistical, and conceptual reproducibility evaluations, to experimentally assess the reproducibility of eight representative deep learning methods. To achieve this, we reimplemented and evaluated these eight deep learning methods using over 1.36 million continuous glucose monitoring samples (5,061 days) from 128 individuals with type 1 diabetes across three public datasets: OhioT1DM, DiaTrend, and T1DEXI. We found that even though these models demonstrated good technical and statistical reproducibility, their conceptual reproducibility-the ability to generalize to datasets with different diabetes management patterns-was limited. Further analyses revealed that each model's overall prediction performance was strongly influenced by individual glycemic control, with higher prediction errors observed among participants with lower time with blood glucose in the target range (70-180 mg/dL). This study identified key reproducibility challenges associated with current blood glucose prediction methods within type 1 diabetes populations, highlighting the need for increased transparency, dataset diversity, standardized evaluation practices, and code accessibility to ensure reproducible and reliable models for blood glucose prediction.
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.