ArticleDiabetes care2026
What Makes the Difference? Predicting Glycemic Trajectories Following Initiation of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes.
Article in Diabetes care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify glycemic trajectories following automated insulin delivery (AID) initiation in youth with type 1 diabetes and associated factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe used group-based trajectory modeling to characterize groups for time in range (TIR) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), measured at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months of AID use, in 713 youth (ages 6-18). Multinomial logistic regression estimated associations between clinical and sociodemographic predictors and glycemic trajectories.
resultsFour TIR and three HbA1c trajectories emerged. All trajectories showed rapid improvement from baseline to 3 months, continued but gradual improvement between 3 and 6 months, followed by waning or sustained improvements after 6 months. Only a small subset (group 4, 12.7%) achieved TIR ≥70%, although more (43.3%) reached an HbA1c <7%. In the TIR model after adjusting for age, sex, type 1 diabetes duration, and prior treatment, participants with fewer user-initiated boluses (odds ratio [OR] 2.46; 95% CI 1.78, 3.39), higher insulin doses/kg (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.25, 1.91), and fewer appointments (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.21, 6.00) had higher odds of membership in the lowest TIR group (group 1) than in the highest TIR group (group 4). In the HbA1c model, lower baseline insulin doses/kg and more boluses were associated with membership in the most optimal group.
conclusionsDistinct glycemic trajectories exist following AID initiation, with all groups experiencing rapid early improvements in TIR and HbA1c that plateau or decline over time. Baseline bolus frequency and insulin doses/kg remain key predictors, highlighting the persistent influence of preexisting behaviors and insulin needs on long-term outcomes.
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.