ArticleDiabetes care2025
Natural Language Processing for Automated Extraction of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data.
Article in Diabetes care, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is essential in diabetes care and research; however, extracting key data (e.g., time above, in, or below range) from CGM reports is manual, time-consuming, and inefficient. Natural language processing (NLP) can extract data from unstructured sources (e.g., images), but its application in CGM remains unexplored. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of extracting CGM data using NLP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe analyzed CGM reports stored as PDF files from the electronic health record at New York University Langone Health. The steps of our algorithm pipeline consist of 1) performing optical character recognition (OCR) to obtain glucose matrix data from CGM reports, 2) determining the type of CGM documents based on keywords in OCR results, 3) extracting variables of glucose based on CGM document type, and 4) storing the extracted glucose data in a structured database. Two experts with experience in CGM research and clinical practice conducted an independent manual review of 1% of the documents (n = 226). We calculated accuracy (correct extraction of CGM data) by comparing the algorithm's results with the manual review.
resultsOf the documents analyzed, 36.8% were Freestyle Libre and 63.2% were Dexcom. For information extraction, the agreement in evaluating Libre results between two experts was 99.93%. When comparing algorithm accuracy with manual review, the accuracy for Libre was 99.87% and, for Dexcom, 100.00%.
conclusionsUsing an NLP approach to extract valuable glucose data from CGM PDF files is feasible and accurate, which can benefit clinical practice and diabetes research.
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.