Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Pregnancies Complicated by Diabetes: Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascertaining the utility of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pregnancy complicated by diabetes is a rapidly evolving area, as the prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) escalates. The seminal randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating CGM use added to standard care in pregnancy in T1D demonstrated significant improvements in maternal glycemia and neonatal health outcomes. Current clinical guidance recommends targets for percentage time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR) during pregnancy complicated by T1D that are widely used in clinical practice. However, the superiority of CGM over blood glucose monitoring (BGM) is still questioned in both T2D and GDM, and whether glucose targets should be different than in T1D is unknown. Questions requiring additional research include which CGM metrics are superior in predicting clinical outcomes, how should pregnancy-specific CGM targets be defined, whether CGM targets should differ according to gestational age, and if CGM metrics during pregnancy should be similar across all types of diabetes. Limiting the potential for CGM to improve pregnancy outcomes may be our inability to maintain TIR > 70% throughout gestation, a goal achieved in the minority of patients studied. Adverse pregnancy outcomes remain high in women with T1D and T2D in pregnancy despite CGM technology, and this review explores the potential reasons and questions yet to be investigated.
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 | 0.027 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".