Cited by 16Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and EducationDigital Mental Health Interventions

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence vs. human coaching in diabetes prevention: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Open access
Abusamaan, Mohammed S., Ballreich, Jeromie, Dobs, Adrian, Kane, Brian, Maruthur, Nisa, McGready, John, Riekert, Kristin, Wanigatunga, Amal A. +7 more·2024·Trials

Abstract

Background: Prediabetes is a highly prevalent condition that heralds an increased risk of progression to type 2 diabetes, along with associated microvascular and macrovascular complications. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an established effective intervention for diabetes prevention. However, participation in this 12-month lifestyle change program has historically been low. Digital DPPs have emerged as a scalable alternative, accessible asynchronously and recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Yet, most digital programs still incorporate human coaching, potentially limiting scalability. Furthermore, existing effectiveness results of digital DPPs are primarily derived from per protocol, longitudinal non-randomized studies, or comparisons to control groups that do not represent the standard of care DPP. The potential of an AI-powered DPP as an alternative to the DPP is yet to be investigated. We propose a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to directly compare these two approaches. Methods: This open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority RCT will compare the effectiveness of a fully automated AI-powered digital DPP (ai-DPP) with a standard of care human coach-based DPP (h-DPP). A total of 368 participants with elevated body mass index (BMI) and prediabetes will be randomized equally to the ai-DPP (smartphone app and Bluetooth-enabled body weight scale) or h-DPP (referral to a CDC recognized DPP). The primary endpoint, assessed at 12 months, is the achievement of the CDC’s benchmark for type 2 diabetes risk reduction, defined as any of the following: at least 5% weight loss, at least 4% weight loss and at least 150 min per week on average of physical activity, or at least a 0.2-point reduction in hemoglobin A1C. Physical activity will be objectively measured using serial actigraphy at baseline and at 1-month intervals throughout the trial. Secondary endpoints, evaluated at 6 and 12 months, will include changes in A1C, weight, physical activity measures, program engagement, and cost-effectiveness. Participants include adults aged 18–75 years with laboratory confirmed prediabetes, a BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m 2 (≥ 23 kg/m 2 for Asians), English proficiency, and smartphone users. This U.S. study is conducted at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, MD, and Reading Hospital (Tower Health) in Reading, PA. Discussion: Prediabetes is a significant public health issue, necessitating scalable interventions for the millions affected. Our pragmatic clinical trial is unique in directly comparing a fully automated AI-powered approach without direct human coach interaction. If proven effective, it could be a scalable, cost-effective strategy. This trial will offer vital insights into both AI and human coach-based behavioral change strategies in real-world clinical settings. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05056376. Registered on September 24, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05056376

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 · 10.1186/s13063-024-08177-8

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Randomization used centrally administered REDCap with randomly permuted block sizes of 2, 4, or 8, stratified by baseline HbA1c and site, and concealed the sequence from research coordinators.

    “Eligible participants underwent block randomization using centrally administered REDCap software.22 Randomization was stratified by baseline HbA1c level (≤6.0% or 6.1%-6.4%) and recruitment site, using randomly permuted block sizes of 2, 4, or 8. The REDCap system concealed the randomization sequence from the research coordinators who enrolled and assigned participants.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abusamaan, M. S., Ballreich, J., Dobs, A., Kane, B., Maruthur, N., McGready, J., Riekert, K., Wanigatunga, A. A., Alderfer, M., Alver, D., Lalani, B., Ringham, B., Vandi, F., Zade, D., & Mathioudakis, N. N.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Reading Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Mathioudakis, Nestoras N.
Venue
Trials
Published
2024-05-16
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
325-325
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396955285
Cited by
16
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10
FWCI
9.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK125780)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
artificial intelligence, diabetes prevention, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes prevention, digital health interventions, mobile application, actigraphy, physical activity, weight loss, HbA1c, non-inferiority, cost-effectiveness, Diabetes Prevention Program, program engagement, scaling up interventions, non-pharmacological treatment, racial and ethnic minorities
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Equivalence Trials as Topic, Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prediabetic State, Time Factors, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Risk Reduction Behavior, Mobile Applications, Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic

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