ArticleScientific reports2025
Interpretable glucose forecasting for type 2 diabetes across traditional, deep, and large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of Large Language Models in Chronic Disease Care: Mixed Methods Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a prevalent chronic condition characterized by elevated blood glucose levels resulting from insulin resistance or inadequate insulin secretion. Accurate prediction of future glucose levels is essential for minimizing complications and enabling proactive management. While machine learning and deep learning models have been extensively applied in this domain, the potential of large language models (LLMs) remains underexplored, with no prior studies systematically comparing them to conventional approaches using real patient data. In this study, we evaluate three model types: traditional (XGBoost, Random Forest), deep learning (GRU, LSTM, Transformer, Ensemble), and finetuned LLMs (GPT-4.1, MiniGPT, LLaMA-1B, LLaMA-7B), for predicting glucose levels 30, 60, and 90 minutes ahead using hybrid inputs of six static features and 20 prior CGM readings. GPT-4.1 achieved the best performance at 30 and 60 minutes, while LLaMA-7B excelled at 90 minutes. Among conventional models, LSTM showed the best performance. Beyond forecasting, interpretability was a central focus. We used explainable AI (XAI) techniques to interpret LSTM results, while GPT-4.1 explained its predictions directly using natural language, without additional training. Notably, the study revealed an alignment between the two explanation techniques, with both highlighting recent glucose readings as key predictors across all forecasting horizons.
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.