ArticleDiabetes technology & therapeutics2026
Developing and Evaluating a Natural Language Processing Algorithm to Detect Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Electronic Health Records of Patients with Type 1 Diabetes.
Article in Diabetes technology & therapeutics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to develop and validate natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to identify insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) users using unstructured clinical note data from the electronic health record (EHR).
methodsWe reviewed a random sample of outpatient clinical notes from endocrinologists to catalog how insulin pump and CGM use was documented. We translated these patterns into regular expressions and used them to build rule-based NLP algorithms, which we iteratively refined. We evaluated the final algorithms in a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) holdout dataset that included the most recent note from 667 unique patients. We then externally validated the algorithms in a second health system with a different EHR and patient population. Manual chart review served as the gold standard. We assessed performance with measures including sensitivity and specificity. To contextualize algorithm performance, we evaluated the accuracy of billing codes for insulin pump and CGM use within the same UCLA holdout dataset.
resultsIn the UCLA holdout dataset, our insulin pump algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.89. The CGM algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 0.85 and specificity of 0.84. The combined algorithm identifying both insulin pump and CGM use showed a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.92. In comparison, billing codes underperformed: International Classification of Diseases/Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes identified insulin pump use with a sensitivity of 0.09 and specificity of 1.00, whereas CPT codes identified CGM use with a sensitivity of 0.68 and specificity of 0.86. For combined device use, billing codes had a sensitivity of 0.06 and specificity of 1.00. External validation demonstrated similarly strong algorithm performance in the second health system.
conclusionsWe showed that NLP can accurately identify insulin pump and CGM users from unstructured EHR notes, substantially outperforming billing code-based methods. This scalable approach can support system- and population-level evaluations of diabetes technologies.
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.