MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411863658 · doi:10.1177/19322968251338754

Research Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities in Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

2025· review· en· W4411863658 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Jacobs, Carol J. Levy, Sue A. Brown, Michael C. Riddell, Ali Çınar, Charlotte K. Boughton, Marc D. Breton, Eyal Dassau, Gregory P. Forlenza, Robert J. Henderson, Roman Hovorka, David M. Maahs, Medha Munshi, Helen R. Murphy, Sarit Polsky, Richard E. Pratley, Melissa S. Putman, Viral N. Shah, Leah M. Wilson, Howard Zisser, Laya Ekhlaspour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Science and Technology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulin deliveryHypoglycemiaType 1 diabetesMedicineArtificial pancreasInsulinComputer scienceDiabetes mellitusRisk analysis (engineering)Endocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the discovery of the life-saving hormone insulin in 1921 by Dr Frederick Banting in 1921, there have been many critical discoveries and technical breakthroughs that have enabled people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to live longer, healthier lives. The development of insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have enabled people living with T1D to safely manage their glucose, reduce their HbA1c, and improve their overall health and quality of life. Nevertheless, AID systems are not yet designed for all people with T1D, and they perform best during the overnight period when meals and exercise are not occurring. AID systems are not fully automated in that they require the person using the system to announce meals and exercise to the system to avoid dangerous hyper- or hypoglycemia, respectively. METHODS: In this review, which is one of a collection of manuscripts to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, we celebrate the commercialization of the AID and discuss the major challenges and research gaps that remain to be solved to enable single- and multi-hormone AID systems to more fully support glucose management in people living with T1D. RESULTS: More research is required to design and evaluate more intelligent AID systems that do not require accurate carbohydrate estimations or announcements for meals and exercise. Current AID systems are also not designed to be used by older adults or pregnant people. Results are presented on new AID systems that can automatically respond to meals and exercise. Results are also presented on evaluations of AID systems in older adults and pregnant people. CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation AID systems will need to support all people, including older adults, people during pregnancy, athletes, and people who may be too busy to announce carbohydrates or exercise to the system. Solutions are now becoming available that will enable AID systems to support a broader range of people living with T1D by leveraging the latest technologies in artificial intelligence and adaptive control.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes Science and TechnologySame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207