Machine Learning and Smart Devices for Diabetes Management: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The use of smart devices to better manage diabetes has increased significantly in recent years. These technologies have been introduced in order to make life easier for patients with diabetes by allowing better control of the stability of blood sugar levels and anticipating the occurrence of dangerous events (hypo/hyperglycemia), etc. That being said, the main objectives of the self-management of diabetes is to improve the lifestyle and life quality of patients with diabetes; (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review based on articles that focus on the use of smart devices for the monitoring and better management of diabetes. The search was focused on keywords related to the topic, such as "Diabetes", "Technology", "Self-management", "Artificial Intelligence", etc. This was performed using databases, such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed; (3) Results: A total of 89 studies, published between 2011 and 2021, were included. The majority of the selected research aims to solve a diabetes management problem (e.g., blood glucose prediction, early detection of risk events, and the automatic adjustment of insulin doses, etc.). In these studies, wearable devices were used in combination with artificial intelligence (AI) techniques; (4) Conclusions: Wearable devices have attracted a great deal of scientific interest in the field of healthcare for people with chronic conditions, such as diabetes. They are capable of assisting in the management of diabetes, as well as preventing complications associated with this condition. Furthermore, the usage of these devices has improved illness management and quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".