Cited by 95Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationPancreatic function and diabetes

The Artificial Pancreas in 2016: A Digital Treatment Ecosystem for Diabetes

Open access
Kovatchev, Boris, Tamborlane, William V., Cefalu, William T., Cobelli, Claudio·2016·Diabetes Care

Abstract

With the increasing availability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), the artificial pancreas (AP) (the commonly accepted term for closed-loop control [CLC] of blood glucose [BG] levels in diabetes) has become a hot area in translational research and industrial development. After a prolonged period of inpatient, clinical research center trials using cumbersome systems, the field has progressed rapidly over the past 2 years to long-term, free-living studies running AP algorithms on smartphones. Although it is still not a cure, the AP is the most promising advance in the treatment of diabetes at this time. This issue of Diabetes Care presents today’s AP state of the art, including reports on multinational home-use AP trials, studies in young children, the use of multihormonal approaches to mitigate meal-related hyperglycemia, and discussions of AP study designs and outcome measures. This collection of articles establishes the AP as a new diabetes treatment paradigm—not a single-function CGM or CSII device but an adaptable wearable network encompassing the patient in a digital treatment ecosystem. In its May 2014 issue, Diabetes Care featured the progress in the AP field in a series of articles labeled “Advances in Artificial Pancreas Development.” In addition to an editorial discussing the state of the art of AP development in 2014 (1), the issue included original articles that covered a broad range of topics including analyses of the possible physiological inputs to CLC (2), real-time estimation of insulin sensitivity from CGM and insulin pump data (3), engineering of the AP algorithms (4), reports of predictive low-glucose suspend (LGS) systems (5), studies of overnight CLC at home (6), feasibility of the AP in type 2 diabetes (7), and the first around-the-clock outpatient CLC running a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm on a portable AP system (8). Since then, …

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 · 10.2337/dc16-0824

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • In July 2016, Diabetes Care published a symposium featuring several outpatient AID studies using DiAs running in two different in silico designed algorithm configurations.

    “In July 2016, Diabetes Care published a symposium, 129 which featured several outpatient AID studies using DiAs running in two different in silico designed algorithm configurations.[123][124][125]”

    From Developing the UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes Simulator: Modeling, Validation, Refinements, and Utility (2023) · cites this paper as [129]

    The AP Today section (page unavailable) says this issue of Diabetes Care includes four outpatient trial reports and identifies DiAs as the platform in three of them; the fourth used Florence D2A. It does not say that the DiAs studies used exactly two algorithm configurations designed in silico, or explicitly identify the issue as July 2016. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kovatchev, B., Tamborlane, W. V., Cefalu, W. T., & Cobelli, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • University of Padua (IT)
Corresponding author
Cobelli, Claudio
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2016-04-25
Volume
39
Issue
7
Pages
1123-1126
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2466367758
Cited by
95
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 5
FWCI
21.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1U54-GM-104940)
  • NIH (P50-AT-002776)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
artificial pancreas, feedback control, diabetes mellitus, continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump therapy, pediatric diabetes, predictive low glucose suspend, type 2 diabetes, model predictive control

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