Cited by 66Diabetes Management and ResearchMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsElectronic Health Records Systems

A case study in open source innovation: Developing the Tidepool Platform for interoperability in type 1 diabetes management

Open access
Neinstein, Aaron, Wong, Jenise, Look, Howard, Arbiter, Brandon, Quirk, Kent, McCanne, Steve, Sun, Yao, Blum, Michael +1 more·2016·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Develop a device-agnostic cloud platform to host diabetes device data and catalyze an ecosystem of software innovation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary team decided to establish a nonprofit company, Tidepool, and build open-source software. RESULTS: Through a user-centered design process, the authors created a software platform, the Tidepool Platform, to upload and host T1D device data in an integrated, device-agnostic fashion, as well as an application ("app"), Blip, to visualize the data. Tidepool's software utilizes the principles of modular components, modern web design including REST APIs and JavaScript, cloud computing, agile development methodology, and robust privacy and security. DISCUSSION: By consolidating the currently scattered and siloed T1D device data ecosystem into one open platform, Tidepool can improve access to the data and enable new possibilities and efficiencies in T1D clinical care and research. The Tidepool Platform decouples diabetes apps from diabetes devices, allowing software developers to build innovative apps without requiring them to design a unique back-end (e.g., database and security) or unique ways of ingesting device data. It allows people with T1D to choose to use any preferred app regardless of which device(s) they use. CONCLUSION: The authors believe that the Tidepool Platform can solve two current problems in the T1D device landscape: 1) limited access to T1D device data and 2) poor interoperability of data from different devices. If proven effective, Tidepool's open source, cloud model for health data interoperability is applicable to other healthcare use cases.

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/jamia/ocv104

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • CGM data can be merged with information provided by other medical devices, mobile apps, clinical registries, electronic health records, and other wearable sensors such as activity trackers.

    “For example, CGM data can be merged with information provided by other medical devices (SMBG, pumps, smart pens) [64], mobile apps, clinical registries, electronic health records, as well as other wearable sensors, such as activity trackers.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [52]McConnell S Chapter 7: Lifecycle Planning. O'Reilly; 1996, Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neinstein, A., Wong, J., Look, H., Arbiter, B., Quirk, K., McCanne, S., Sun, Y., Blum, M., & Adi, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Tidepool (US)
Corresponding author
Neinstein, Aaron
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2015-09-02
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
324-332
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2140397432
Cited by
66
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • National Institutes of Health (5k12dk094726-05, NIH T32, T32 grant, NIH K12, DK094726)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK107894, DK094726)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, open source software, health data interoperability, diabetes apps, user-centered design, health data access
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Humans, Ownership, Software, Systems Integration

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