Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Analysis 2.0: Functional Data Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence Applications

Published in Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology on 2025-08-14.

David C. Klonoff; Richard M. Bergenstal; Eda Cengiz; Mark A. Clements; Daniel Espes; Juan Espinoza; David Kerr; Boris Kovatchev; David M. Maahs; Julia K. Mader; Nestoras Mathioudakis; Ahmed A. Metwally; Shahid N. Shah; Bin Sheng; Michael P. Snyder; Guillermo Umpierrez; Mandy M. Shao; Agatha F. Scheideman; Alessandra T. Ayers; Cindy N. Ho; Elizabeth Healey

Read the paper at the publisher (DOI 10.1177/19322968251353228)

Abstract

New methods of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data analysis are emerging that are valuable for interpreting CGM patterns and underlying metabolic physiology. These new methods use functional data analysis and artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML).

Compared to traditional metrics for evaluating CGM tracing results (CGM Data Analysis 1.0), these new methods, which we refer to as CGM Data Analysis 2.0, can provide a more detailed understanding of glucose fluctuations and trends and enable more personalized and effective diabetes management strategies once translated into practical clinical solutions.

Put this to work

Finding application record

Test whether the published finding applies in another setting.

For: Practitioners, researchers, founders, and operating leaders.
What you keep: A finding application record you can review, revise, and send.
What counts as sound: Answers a named decision
Separates evidence from assumptions
Includes the strongest contrary case
Names missing evidence
Ends with a test, owner, and date

Read the published paper and its limits before acting on the result.

Nothing entered here is stored or sent. Review the prompt before sharing confidential, personal, patient, or privileged information.

The caseName the organization, setting, product, or piece of work without including confidential information.The decisionWhat must someone decide, and who owns that decision?Evidence in handList records, observations, measurements, rights, or prior work that can be checked.What is still unknownName missing evidence, disputed assumptions, and practical constraints.

Review the prompt

Finding application record 1.0

PURPOSE
Test whether the published finding applies in another setting.

CONTEXT
The case: Not provided
The decision: Not provided
Evidence in hand: Not provided
What is still unknown: Not provided

METHOD
1. State the finding being used.
2. Compare the original setting with yours.
3. List evidence that transfers and evidence that does not.
4. Name alternative explanations.
5. Define a replication or application test.

TASK
Use the method below to produce a Finding application record.

RULES
Separate facts, inferences, assumptions, estimates, hypotheses, and unknowns. Do not invent evidence, performance, rights, customers, economics, or regulatory standing. Quote or link the source for material facts. State uncertainty. Name what would disprove the conclusion. End with the smallest credible test, an owner, a decision date, and a stop condition.

A SOUND ANSWER
- Answers a named decision
- Separates evidence from assumptions
- Includes the strongest contrary case
- Names missing evidence
- Ends with a test, owner, and date

CAUTION
Read the published paper and its limits before acting on the result.

You can leave any field blank. The prompt will mark it as not provided.

If the record survives your review, send the question, evidence, unknowns, and requested next step.

Discuss a replication or application Intellectual Frontiers on LinkedIn