ArticlePloS one2026
Empirical transition probability modeling of continuous glucose monitoring data.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) produces rich time series data. Standard metrics such as time-in-range summarize glycemia but miss the sequence of changes. We aimed to characterize glucose dynamics using empirical transition probability techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing publicly available data for 244 participants who enrolled in the Insulin-Only Bionic Pancreas (IOBP2) randomized clinical trial, we mapped each CGM reading to one of five states: < 54, 54-69, 70-180, 181-250, or >250 mg/dL. We counted state changes between consecutive readings collected every 5 minutes. For each participant, we built a 5 × 5 transition probability matrix and averaged matrices within comparator groups. Statistical inference using estimated transition probability matrices was compared to inferences based on standard metrics including mean glucose, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, time-in-range metrics, Glycemia Risk Index (GRI), Mean of Daily Differences (MODD), and Mean Amplitude of Glycemic Excursions (MAGE).
resultsTransition probability analysis showed more frequent moves from hyperglycemia (181-250 or >250 mg/dL) to the in-range (70-180 mg/dL) state for the bionic pancreas that was evaluated in the IOBP2 trial compared to control. This pattern appeared in both adults and in children and persisted through the trial. Conventional CGM metrics also showed treatment differences in mean glucose, GRI, and time in range; MODD, MAGE, and coefficient of variation showed less consistent differences between treatment groups.
conclusionTransition probability matrices provide an informative summary of glucose dynamics that complements established CGM metrics. In IOBP2, this approach highlighted improved patterns of recovery from hyperglycemia with the bionic pancreas compared with control. Future studies should determine whether transition-based summaries are associated with clinically meaningful 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.