ArticleScientific reports2024
Data-driven blood glucose level prediction in type 1 diabetes: a comprehensive comparative analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Blood Glucose Level Prediction in Type 1 Diabetes: Methods, Evaluation, and Emerging Advances.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Modeling and Prediction of Blood Glucose in Type 1 Diabetes.Delaware journal of public health · 2026Article
- Interplay of hypoxia, immune dysregulation, and metabolic stress in pathophysiology of type 1 diabetes.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
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
Accurate prediction of blood glucose level (BGL) has proven to be an effective way to help in type 1 diabetes management. The choice of input, along with the fundamental choice of model structure, is an existing challenge in BGL prediction. Investigating the performance of different data-driven time series forecasting approaches with different inputs for BGL prediction is beneficial in advancing BGL prediction performance. Limited work has been made in this regard, which has resulted in different conclusions. This paper performs a comprehensive investigation of different data-driven time series forecasting approaches using different inputs. To do so, BGL prediction is comparatively investigated from two perspectives; the model's approach and the model's input. First, we compare the performance of BGL prediction using different data-driven time series forecasting approaches, including classical time series forecasting, traditional machine learning, and deep neural networks. Secondly, for each prediction approach, univariate input, using BGL data only, is compared to a multivariate input, using data on carbohydrate intake, injected bolus insulin, and physical activity in addition to BGL data. The investigation is performed on two publicly available Ohio datasets. Regression-based and clinical-based metrics along with statistical analyses are performed for evaluation and comparison purposes. The outcomes show that the traditional machine learning model is the fastest model to train and has the best BGL prediction performance especially when using multivariate input. Also, results show that simply adding extra variables does not necessarily improve BGL prediction performance significantly, and data fusion approaches may be required to effectively leverage other variables' information.
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.