ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Individualized Therapy Optimization for Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Study of Model Development, Internal Validation, and Physician Evaluation.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes is a widespread chronic condition in which blood glucose and body weight management constitute essential therapeutic targets. Emerging technologies have the potential to aid complex therapeutic pharmacotherapy choices that are optimally tailored to individual needs. Objective: In this study, we developed and evaluated an AI model combining guidelines with clinical features and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to optimize therapeutic decision-making. Methods: Therapeutic guidelines were first encoded using a rule-based model and trained on a feed-forward neural network to predict the probability of therapeutic success for individual treatment recommendations. This approach relied on real-world evidence from a specialist diabetes outpatient clinic, using historical clinical data generated between 2009 and 2023. We used data from 533 patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and complete baseline data for weight and hemoglobin A Results: Dual glycemic and weight targets were achieved in actual clinical practice in 51.2% (131/256) of cases, increasing to 54% (20/37) when clinical guidelines were followed. After selecting outcomes in the test set that followed individualized recommendations, this increased further to 58% (21/36) when using only phenotypic markers and to 65% (22/34) when adding CGM-derived dynamic factors. Conclusions: Tested on the limited number of patients available, our findings show that our AI model was associated with improved retrospective outcomes compared to the guidelines in complex type 2 diabetes cases by integrating multiple data sources, drawing on experiential clinical insights, and selecting treatments most likely to meet each patient's clinical targets for glucose and weight control. Future research is needed with a larger dataset.
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.