ArticleDiabetes & vascular disease research
Accurate prediction of HbA1c by continuous glucose monitoring using a kinetic model with patient-specific parameters for red blood cell lifespan and glucose uptake.
Article in Diabetes & vascular disease research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of the Glucose Management Indicator (GMI) in Type 2 Diabetes.Clinical chemistry · 2023Trial
- Consensus statement on novel glucose-related metrics obtained through advanced medical devices: English version.Diabetology international · 2025Article
- Consistency of the personalized glycated haemoglobin (pHbA1c) methodology over time in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using continuous glucose monitoring.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Article
- Integrated Longitudinal Population Dose-Hemoglobin Response of Daprodustat Following Dose Titration in Patients With Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Variation in the relationship between fasting glucose and HbA1c: implications for the diagnosis of diabetes in different age and ethnic groups.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2024Article
- Type 1 diabetes iron-deficiency anaemia case report and the clinical relevance of red blood cell lifespan-adjusted glycated haemoglobin.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2023Article
- Evaluation of continuous glucose monitoring-derived person-specific HbA1c in the presence and absence of complications in type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Article
- Interindividual variability in average glucose-glycated haemoglobin relationship in type 1 diabetes and implications for clinical practice.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2022Article
- The relative contribution of diurnal and nocturnal glucose exposures to HbA1c in type 1 diabetes males: a pooled analysis.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2022Article
- Addressing shortfalls of laboratory HbAeLife · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent kinetic model proposed a new individualized glycaemic marker, calculated HbA1c (cHbA1c), based on kinetic parameters and glucose levels that are specific to each person. The aims of the current work were to validate the accuracy of this glucose metric for clinical use and evaluate data requirements for the estimation of personal kinetic factors.
methodsWe retrieved HbA1c and glucose data from a group of 51 Japanese T1D patients under sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Two patient-specific kinetic parameters were identified by data sections, defined as continuous glucose data between two laboratory HbA1c measurements. The cHbA1c was prospectively validated employing subsequent HbA1c data that were not originally used to determine personal kinetic parameters.
resultsCompared to estimated HbA1c (eHbA1c) and glucose management indicator (GMI), cHbA1c showed clinically relevant accuracy improvement, with 20% or more within ±0.5% (±5.5 mmol/mol) of laboratory HbA1c. The mean absolute deviation of the cHbA1c calculation was 0.11% (1.2 mmol/mol), substantially less than for eHbA1c and GMI at 0.54% (5.9 mmol/mol) and 0.47% (5.1 mmol/mol), respectively.
conclusionOur study shows superior performance of cHbA1c compared with eHbA1c and GMI at reflecting laboratory HbA1c, making it a credible glucose metric for routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.