Cited by 4Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsNutritional Studies and Diet

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Optimised Glucose “Time in Range” Using Continuous Glucose Monitors in 4,805 Non-Diabetic Individuals Is Associated With Favourable Diet and Health: The ZOE PREDICT Studies

Open access

Abstract

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables the dynamic measurement of glycemic control. In diabetic cohorts, time in range (TIR), measured by CGM, is discriminatory of future disease development. However, the value of CGM metrics in non-diabetic populations and their relationship with health outcomes is unclear. This research developed ‘optimised’ TIR targets specific to healthy populations and explored their relationship with diet and health. The ZOE PREDICT studies, one (n = 1002, UK), two (n = 987, US) and three (n = 4,500, US) collected demographic information, habitual and free-living diet data, cardiometabolic blood biomarkers and postprandial responses to standardized meals in clinic and free-living settings. TIR was calculated from CGMs (2–4 days free-living) using 1) the American Diabetes Association (ADA); 70–140 mg/dL (TIRADA) and 2) a novel optimised; 70–100 mg/dL (TIRoptimised) target. Habitual diet quality (plant-based diet indices; PDI, healthy-PDI and unhealthy-PDI), and free-living nutrient intakes (% energy) were calculated. Associations (spearman's, adjusted for age, sex and BMI) between TIR and diet were examined, and differences in diet and health outcomes between quintile 1 (Q1) and 5 (Q5) of TIR targets were assessed. Mean fasting glucose was 91 ± 10 mg/dL, HbA1c 5.3 ± 0.4%, TIRoptimised 70 ± 17% and TIRADA 91 ± 13% (n = 4805 after exclusions, 78% females, mean age 46 ± 12y). Individuals with better glycemic control (TIRoptimised Q5 vs Q1) were younger (mean ± SD) (45 ± 11 vs 49 ± 12y), had lower HbA1c (5.2 ± 0.4 vs 5.5 ± 0.5) and fasting glucose (91 ± 14 vs 97 ± 23 mg/dL) and higher HDL-cholesterol (1.7 ± 0.4 vs 1.6 ± 0.5mmol/L) (P< 0.001 for all). TIRoptimised (PREDICT 1 n = 868) was associated with a favourable diet (lower unhealthy-PDI and carbohydrate intakes and higher protein intakes) and cardiometabolic risk profile (lower HbA1c and ASCVD) (P < 0.05 for all). However, TIRADA was not associated with diet or health outcomes. We demonstrate that an optimised TIR target (70–100 mg/dL) is discriminatory of ASCVD risk despite normal fasting HbA1c. These findings demonstrate the utility of CGM's in non-diabetic populations and highlight the potential application of dietary strategies to improve TIR and subsequent metabolic complications. ZOE Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cdn/nzac078.002

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For individuals without diabetes, a TIR of 90% or higher has been considered normal.

    “For individuals without diabetes, a TIR of 90% or higher has been considered normal42.”

    From Impact of digital health interventions on glycemic control and weight management. (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Results report a mean ADA-defined TIR of 91 ± 13% among 4,805 people without diabetes, which is consistent with a value around 90% being typical in this sample. The paper does not establish 90% or higher as a cutoff for what is considered normal; its Methods define TIR by glucose ranges, not by a percentage threshold. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Berry, S., Bermingham, K., Valdes, A., Franks, P., Wolf, J., & Spector, T.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • ZOE (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Current Developments in Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
6
Pages
1108
ISSN
2475-2991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4282823632
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Developments in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
time in range, continuous glucose monitoring, non-diabetic individuals, glycemic control, plant-based diet, diet quality, cardiometabolic biomarkers, postprandial blood glucose, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, HDL cholesterol, cardiovascular risk, healthy lifestyle, nutrient intake

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review