Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712297›Full record

ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026

How data drift impacts the safety and interpretability of machine learning models predicting risk from blood glucose control.

Ho-Hin Leung, Christopher Duckworth, Dan Burns, Matthew Guy, Michael Boniface

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ho-Hin LeungSchool of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0486-5178
Christopher DuckworthIT Innovation Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0659-2177
Dan BurnsIT Innovation Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Matthew GuySchool of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6818-2010
Michael BonifaceIT Innovation Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9281-6095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Predictive algorithms trained from historical data and deployed in dynamic environments are at risk from data drift. Machine learning models using data collected by sensors making continuous measurements could be impacted by both changes in the device itself and their users, driving drift and impacting safety. To maintain predictive performance, algorithms must be continuously monitored and tuned to overcome fundamental changes to both input data (covariate shift) and the relationship with the output (concept drift). Here, we aim to understand how changes to user behaviour, physiology and sensors could impact the safety of models using automated sensor readings from continuous glucose monitors (CGM). Methods and analysis: In this paper, we investigate how data drift in a machine learning model trained to predict short-term risk from blood glucose control for individuals with type-1 diabetes. We simulate how changes in both user behaviour and accuracy of the sensor could lead to covariate shift and concept drift. For each scenario, we quantify the changes to input data (Jensen-Shannon divergence), the impact to model performance metrics and the explainability of the model (ie, shift in feature importance). Results: We demonstrate that using a combination of covariate shift detection, multiple performance metrics and feature importance offers a powerful methodology of identifying different types of drifts in sensor data. For blood glucose management, our scenarios focused on user behaviour (ie, changes to blood glucose dynamics and CGM use) and device/sensor noise and variability, finding more simplistic approaches to drift detection could incorrectly identify risk to model safety. Conclusion: Machine learning and AI can enhance clinical decision-making, but often lack the transparency required to ensure ongoing safety. Combining complementary monitoring techniques enables clearer identification of changes in data or model behaviour, helping determine when retraining or intervention is needed.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceData ScienceDisease ManagementMachine LearningPreventive Medicine

Identifiers

PMID42712297
PMCPMC13528331

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.