ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Digital phenotyping of CGM engagement reveals distinct glycemic outcomes.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Benefits from continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may depend on how devices are used over time-not only how often they are used. We linked one year of device-generated CGM wear data from 2,351 U.S. Veterans to electronic health records (EHRs) to characterize real-world usage during the first year after CGM initiation. To compare longitudinal use patterns in the presence of unsynchronized sensor replacement-related gaps and intermittent interruptions, we aligned daily wear streams using a complexity-adjusted, time-adaptive optimal transport (TAOT) distance and applied spectral clustering to identify data-driven usage phenotypes. To estimate the adjusted association between CGM usage phenotypes and clinical outcomes, we used a double/debiased machine learning framework to quantify 12-month changes in time in range (ΔTIR) and mean glucose (ΔMG). We identified three reproducible patterns of CGM usage: Consistent, Fluctuating, and Low engagement. Relative to Consistent wear, Fluctuating usage was associated with worse glycemic change (ΔTIR = -3.56%, 95% CI: -4.76 to -2.36; ΔMG = +7.12 mg/dL, 95% CI: 4.91 to 9.32), and Low engagement showed larger deterioration (ΔTIR = -7.00%, 95% CI: -10.80 to -3.14; ΔMG = +14.09 mg/dL, 95% CI: 6.52 to 21.67). Notably, 73.2% of Fluctuating users still met a common "adherence" threshold (≥80% days worn), indicating that simple coverage metrics can miss clinically relevant instability. The differences in glycemic change (ΔTIR and ΔMG) between the Consistent and Fluctuating groups were most pronounced among subgroups with more intensive diabetes management needs, such as insulin pump or glucagon users, suggesting that sustained CGM usage may be particularly important when clinical management is more complex. Beyond CGM and diabetes, this work provides a generalizable framework for characterizing longitudinal usage patterns of intermittently used digital health technologies and linking derived usage phenotypes to clinical outcomes. The approach can support more precise evaluation, monitoring, and intervention design for a wide range of real-world digital health tools.
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.