2023
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-023-06038-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diabetes and artificial intelligence beyond the closed loop: a review of the landscape, promise and challenges

Scott C. Mackenzie,
Chris A. R. Sainsbury,
Deborah J. Wake

Abstract: The discourse amongst diabetes specialists and academics regarding technology and artificial intelligence (AI) typically centres around the 10% of people with diabetes who have type 1 diabetes, focusing on glucose sensors, insulin pumps and, increasingly, closed-loop systems. This focus is reflected in conference topics, strategy documents, technology appraisals and funding streams. What is often overlooked is the wider application of data and AI, as demonstrated through published literature and emerging marke… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 66 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Decision makers and technology advocates need to address the complexities of AI more comprehensively and understand the systemic challenges that its adoption poses to health care organizations and systems. As an example, consider an AI tool used for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy in a primary care setting, such as by a family physician or nurse [ 102 ]. In theory, this could lead to shorter waiting times for patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decision makers and technology advocates need to address the complexities of AI more comprehensively and understand the systemic challenges that its adoption poses to health care organizations and systems. As an example, consider an AI tool used for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy in a primary care setting, such as by a family physician or nurse [ 102 ]. In theory, this could lead to shorter waiting times for patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%