Review
Print
Review
AI and telemedicine in management of diabetes
expand article infoSava Petrov, Dean Donkov§, Maria Orbetzova|
‡ Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
§ University of Telecommunications and Posts, Sofia, Bulgaria
| Medical Univeristy of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Open Access

Abstract

This review explores how two cutting-edge technologies—telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI)—are reshaping diabetes care. Diabetes remains one of healthcare’s toughest challenges, demanding round-the-clock monitoring and treatments that adapt to each patient’s needs. During COVID-19, telemedicine proved its worth as a vital tool for maintaining patient care and improving health outcomes. Meanwhile, AI—through machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL)—brings fresh capabilities for catching diabetes early, assessing patient risk, and spotting complications like eye and nerve damage before they become serious. We examined recent research on these technologies, particularly their roles in predicting who might develop diabetes, using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to decode messy patient records, and supporting doctors through clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Our findings reveal that telemedicine works—it helps patients control their blood sugar better and keeps them satisfied with their care. However, not everyone has equal access to technology, and some healthcare providers remain skeptical. AI diagnostic tools, especially for eye screening, now match human doctors in accuracy. Though merging these technologies could revolutionize personalized diabetes care, we first need to tackle real-world obstacles: ensuring fair access for all patients, protecting sensitive health data, and making different systems work together seamlessly.

Keywords

AI, CGM, diabetes, telemedecine

Overview of diabetes management

Managing diabetes is a tough challenge. The disease demands constant vigilance, flexible treatment plans that change with patients’ needs, and strategies to handle its emotional toll. Type 2 diabetes brings extra complications: patients must monitor blood sugar continuously, stick to their medications religiously, and cope with the stress that comes with a chronic illness. Success requires more than just fancy gadgets. We need to understand how patients think and act, educate them properly, and build strong support networks.

Blood glucose monitoring sits at the heart of the challenge. The old approach—checking blood sugar occasionally throughout the day (SMBG)—gives an incomplete picture at best. Think of it like trying to understand a movie by watching a few random scenes. Recent evidence shows that flash continuous glucose monitoring (fCGM) delivers much better results for hospitalized diabetes patients. Current guidelines suggest specific scanning frequencies: ten times daily for kids with any type of diabetes, adults with type 1, and pregnant women. Adults with type 2 need about seven scans daily. This frequency helps doctors assess how treatments, food choices, and physical activity affect glucose while preventing dangerous highs and lows.[1]

Getting patients to actually monitor their blood sugar represents another uphill battle. Research reveals a sobering reality: just 57.6% of type 2 diabetes patients follow SMBG guidelines properly. Why such poor compliance? Several factors contribute—how long someone has had diabetes, whether they take oral medications, and crucially, their mindset. Many patients feel defeated by their condition and doubt their ability to manage it effectively.‌[2] When patients skip monitoring, their blood sugar control deteriorates and complications become more likely. The mental health aspect compounds these problems. Interviews with Malaysian diabetes educators revealed that anxiety and depression significantly worsen adherence to both monitoring and treatment routines.[3] We can’t separate the physical from the psychological when treating diabetes.

Treatment approaches must adapt because people respond differently to diabetes therapies. The traditional regimen—measuring glucose 3-4 times and injecting insulin 3-4 times daily—often misses the mark. Blood sugar doesn’t follow a predictable schedule; it fluctuates constantly throughout the day.[4] Modern adaptive strategies leverage portable SMBG devices and continuous sensors to adjust insulin doses on the fly. This real-time approach has proven its worth, improving blood sugar control and reducing dangerous lows—both essential for successful diabetes management.[5] Smart computer systems like the Diabetes Diagnostic Assistance System (DDAS) take this further by analyzing symptoms and test results to craft treatment plans tailored to each patient’s changing needs.[6]

Healthcare providers play an irreplaceable role in diabetes care. Without proper education and support, patients struggle to manage their condition effectively. The statistics paint a concerning picture: merely 30.9% of type 2 diabetes patients achieve good blood sugar control. This gap underscores why we desperately need better diabetes education programs that empower patients to take charge of their health.[3] COVID-19 exposed and amplified existing weaknesses in diabetes care delivery. The pandemic disrupted regular medical appointments, creating dangerous gaps in monitoring and treatment. Hospitalized COVID patients with diabetes faced a double burden—altered care protocols combined with blood sugar control problems that worsened their overall health.[7]

This crisis demonstrated that healthcare systems need more resilience. While COVID-19 infected over 12 million people and killed more than 500,000 worldwide, we still had to maintain essential diabetes services.[7] Remote monitoring emerged as a lifeline during this period. The IDEATel study offers compelling evidence: following 1,665 diabetes patients over five years, remote monitoring improved HbA1c, cholesterol, and blood pressure. This success provides a blueprint for tracking patients remotely and stepping in quickly when problems arise.[8]

Telemedicine in diabetes care

The pandemic transformed telemedicine from a nice-to-have option into an essential service for diabetes patients. What started as a workaround during lockdowns has proven itself to be a powerful tool for delivering care, improving health outcomes, and keeping patients connected to their healthcare teams. Let’s examine what the research tells us about telemedicine’s strengths, weaknesses, and potential future in diabetes care.

COVID-19 forced healthcare to adapt rapidly. Telemedicine allowed doctors to keep treating patients while everyone stayed safe from the virus. The numbers speak volumes: when researchers surveyed 958 type 2 diabetes patients, an impressive 91.43% said they were satisfied with telemedicine services during the pandemic. This overwhelming approval shows patients were ready to embrace virtual care.[9] But satisfaction alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Ma and colleagues conducted a major review that proved telemedicine delivers real health benefits. After tracking patients for 12 months, they found HbA1c levels—the key marker for long-term blood sugar control—dropped by an average of 0.84 percentage points.[10] In another trial, Sood’s team compared 199 patients using telemedicine against 83 receiving standard care. The telemedicine group saw their HbA1c fall by 1.01%, while the control group dropped just 0.68%. Though this difference wasn’t quite statistically significant (p=0.19), patient satisfaction told a different story—61.2% of telemedicine users were “very satisfied” versus only 40.8% in the standard care group.[11] These results suggest telemedicine matches traditional care clinically while making patients happier (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Forest plot of mean difference in HbA1c after 12 months of telemedicine intervention. The plot synthesizes results from three studies included in the meta-analysis. The squares represent the mean difference (MD) for each individual study, with the horizontal lines indicating the 95% confidence interval (CI). The black diamond at the bottom represents the pooled overall effect, which shows a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c (MD=−0.84, 95% CI: −1.53 to −0.16). The diamond does not cross the vertical “no effect” line (at 0.0), indicating the result is significant. Adapted from Ma et al.[10]

A comprehensive review of clinical trials painted a consistent picture. Telemedicine consistently lowered HbA1c levels across different timeframes: 0.57% reduction within 3 months, 0.28% at 4-12 months, and 0.26% beyond 12 months. These improvements might seem modest, but they matter. Telemedicine doesn’t just help with monitoring—it gets patients more involved in their own care, which proves crucial for managing any chronic disease.[12]

Yet telemedicine faces real obstacles. Researchers identified 33 different barriers blocking widespread adoption. The top three? Staff struggling with technology (11%), resistance to change (8%), and worries about costs (8%). Additional roadblocks include insurance coverage, patient age, and education levels. These challenges hit hardest in poorer communities where internet access and tech skills remain limited.[13] Still, success stories offer hope. During the pandemic, Fundación Valle del Lili’s telemedicine program served 663 diabetes patients, proving that virtual care can bridge healthcare gaps for people with chronic conditions who need ongoing support.[14]

Adding wearable devices to telemedicine creates even better results. When researchers combined wearables with patient education, they saw remarkable improvements. Blood glucose dropped significantly (mean difference =–32.39; p<0.0001), and patients lost over 2% of their body weight in just three months. Real-time health tracking through wearables helps patients stick to their treatment plans.[15] The data confirms what many suspected—wearables boost telemedicine effectiveness by keeping patients engaged between virtual visits.[15]

Money matters too. Early diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes could save billions. In the US alone, diabetes costs ballooned from 188 billion in 2012 to 237 billion by 2017. Telemedicine’s cost-effectiveness becomes especially important for chronic diseases requiring lifelong care.[16] A study examining wearables for diabetes management found encouraging results after three months: over 2% weight loss, lower blood glucose, and reduced HbA1c. Interestingly, patient adherence didn’t change significantly, suggesting the benefits come from better monitoring rather than increased compliance.[16]

Artificial Intelligence in diabetes management

AI is revolutionizing how we detect, predict, and treat diabetes. By enhancing screening accuracy and enabling earlier intervention, AI helps doctors provide targeted treatments that significantly reduce the severe health problems that come from years of high blood sugar.[17] The technology extends beyond diagnosis—AI algorithms in insulin pumps can smooth out glucose swings, directly improving patients’ daily lives. With diabetes cases projected to hit 643 million by 2030 and 783 million by 2045, AI tools for predicting and diagnosing complications like eye and nerve damage have become indispensable.[17]

Deep learning shines brightest in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR), the leading cause of blindness in diabetes patients. When researchers tested AI against human eye doctors using modified Davis grading, the AI system achieved a PABAK score of 0.64 with 81% accuracy. This meant AI could actually outperform traditional human grading when analyzing retinal images.[18] A review of 40 research studies confirmed these findings—deep learning consistently achieved excellent results across various diabetes tasks, particularly in spotting eye disease.[19] The technology’s ability to process complex image data enables faster, more accurate screening than ever before.

AI also personalizes diabetes care through mobile health apps. These apps analyze real-time data—blood sugar readings, meal information, exercise patterns—to provide custom recommendations for the 451 million people living with diabetes worldwide.[20] Beyond giving advice, these apps enable doctors to monitor patients remotely and intervene promptly when needed. This proves especially valuable for chronic conditions requiring constant oversight.[21] AI excels at finding hidden patterns in vast datasets that human providers might miss, leading to more precise, individualized treatment plans.[22]

The FDA’s approval of autonomous AI for eye screening marked a watershed moment. This system detects serious diabetic retinopathy and macular edema with 87.2% sensitivity and 90.7% specificity—all without human involvement.[23, 24] Commercial systems like EyeArt perform even better, achieving 91.3% sensitivity and 91.1% specificity, making them invaluable for catching problems early.[25, 26] The impact has been dramatic. Autonomous AI screening achieved 97.5% diagnostic accuracy and boosted detection of serious retinopathy to 85.7%. Most impressively, it increased screening compliance from 49% to 95% among young diabetes patients, especially helping communities with limited access to eye specialists.[27, 28] This technology proves particularly vital for high-risk populations like American Indians and Alaska Natives, who face a 14.7% diabetes rate—higher than other US groups—and death rates 3.2 times the national average.[29]

AI doesn’t stop at diagnosis—it optimizes treatment too. Algorithms predict complications like kidney and nerve damage with an AUROC of 0.85, helping doctors adjust treatments proactively.[17, 22] Using data from 27,904 type 2 diabetes patients, a new Treatment Pathway Graph system lets AI customize medication plans by considering individual patient factors and predicting which treatments will work best.[30] This personalization proves essential since patients respond so differently to diabetes medications.

Several hurdles remain. Data comes in different formats from various sources, making integration difficult. AI devices must prove their reliability. Patients worry about privacy, and some lack motivation to use new technology.[20, 31] Li and colleagues emphasized that standardizing data formats and combining different information sources will be key to making AI more effective in diabetes care.[32] Trust matters too. While patients appreciated AI’s efficiency for analyzing eye images via telemedicine, many still wanted human doctors involved in the process.[33] Building confidence through education and transparency will be essential for widespread adoption.

Looking ahead, AI’s ability to analyze continuous glucose monitor data—which records readings every 1-5 minutes—promises even more personalized care.[34, 35] As these technologies mature, they’ll not only improve medical outcomes but enhance daily life for millions living with diabetes.

Algorithms used in diabetes management

Diabetes care relies on two main types of AI: machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL). Each brings unique strengths to different aspects of patient care.

Machine learning encompasses techniques like support vector machines (SVM), decision trees, and random forests. A major review covering 450 clinical studies revealed how extensively these tools are used to identify high-risk diabetes patients.[36–38] SVMs, for instance, classify patients by complication risk with accuracy rates between 8% and 45% for type 2 diabetes, helping doctors focus on those who need help most.[38] In Western China, researchers built an XGBoost model that achieved an impressive AUC of 0.9122 for predicting diabetes risk, demonstrating ML’s power for early intervention.[39] Khalate and Sukeshkumar’s comprehensive review tested multiple algorithms—logistic regression, decision trees, random forests—and found consistently high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Their work confirms ML’s potential to transform diagnosis and patient care.[40]

ML also excels at preventing complications. Decision support systems using ML can predict dangerous low blood sugar episodes in type 1 diabetes with remarkable accuracy. This early warning system has dramatically reduced hypoglycemic events, making life safer and better for patients.‌[41] In a practical example, combining continuous glucose monitoring with an ML-powered insulin advisory system reduced glucose variability significantly—coefficient of variation dropped from 0.36 to 0.33 (p=0.045). This smoother glucose control translates directly to better patient outcomes.[42]

Deep learning takes a different approach, using neural networks to decode complex information like retinal images or continuous glucose data. An ensemble CNN model combining VGGNet and residual neural network architectures achieved stunning results: AUC of 0.973, sensitivity of 92.25%, and specificity of 89.04% for detecting serious diabetic eye disease.[43, 44] The model learned from 76,370 retinal images from over 13,000 diabetes patients, enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment of vision-threatening complications.[43]

Natural language processing (NLP) represents an emerging frontier. By understanding clinical notes and patient narratives, NLP helps create more personalized care. A review of 1,849 articles showed that adding NLP to diabetes self-management tools increases patient engagement and treatment adherence.[37] Digital health technologies powered by AI promise even greater advances—helping prevent diabetes in high-risk groups and supporting patients who can’t make it to in-person appointments.[45]

Predictive modeling in diabetes onset

Predicting who will develop diabetes has become increasingly sophisticated thanks to machine learning. Researchers now use various algorithms—Logistic Regression, Decision Trees, Random Forest, XGBoost, and SVM—each offering different advantages for identifying future type 2 diabetes cases.

Logistic Regression remains popular because doctors can easily understand and explain its results. One study found that models using four blood tests plus body measurements achieved an auROC of 0.87, substantially outperforming traditional risk scores. The Finnish Diabetes Risk Score managed only 0.66, while the German version reached 0.73. This superior performance comes from considering multiple factors like age, BMI, and family history together.[46, 47] Decision Trees and Random Forests handle more complex patterns in the data. These methods have been tested extensively on datasets like the PIMA Indians database, showing varying but generally strong accuracy in predicting diabetes risk.[48, 49] XGBoost stands out for exceptional performance—one ensemble model achieved an AUC of 0.884, proving the power of advanced machine learning.[50, 51]

Hidden Markov Models represent another breakthrough, predicting 8-year diabetes risk with 86.9% AROC. This beats the Framingham Risk Score’s 78.6% by a significant margin, showing ML’s superior ability to distinguish future diabetes cases.[52, 54] However, accuracy isn’t everything. One model achieved 78.26% prediction accuracy with 21.74% cross-validation error. Since missing a diabetes diagnosis (false negative) can have serious consequences, models must balance catching all cases against avoiding false alarms.[47, 54]

Quality datasets drive quality predictions. The Pima Indians Diabetes Database, containing records from 768 female patients, serves as a standard benchmark for testing algorithms like K-nearest neighbors.[55] The Framingham Heart Study provides another crucial resource, helping identify risk factors through its long-term patient tracking. Their risk model estimates 8-year diabetes probability based on current health status.[52] Using diverse datasets ensures models work across different populations.

Deep learning opens new possibilities, like predicting heart disease risk from eye photos. One remarkable study showed AI could determine age (within 3.26 years), sex (97% accuracy), smoking status (71% accuracy), and blood pressure (within 11.23 mmHg) just from retinal images. This matches human expert performance while revealing connections between diabetes and broader health risks.[56] Researchers have also used deep learning to detect diabetic nerve damage. Testing the SqueezeNet architecture on 1,561 diabetes patients, they achieved an AUC of 0.8013 for identifying neuropathy from retinal images.[57] Since nerve damage often goes undetected until severe, early identification proves crucial.

Gulshan’s team set the gold standard for AI eye screening. Their deep learning model detected serious diabetic retinopathy with 90.3% sensitivity and 98.1% specificity on one dataset, and 87.0% sensitivity with 98.5% specificity on another. This reliability makes AI screening practical for widespread use.[58] The technology saves healthcare systems money while catching problems earlier.

Beyond images, AI predicts diabetes from electronic health records too. Ravaut’s team built a gradient boosting model that achieved an AUC of 80.26 using administrative data. Remarkably, the top 5% highest-risk patients identified by the model accounted for 26% of Ontario’s total diabetes costs. This enables smarter resource allocation and targeted prevention.[59] Choi’s group took a different angle, predicting new diabetes cases in heart disease patients. Their model achieved an AUC of 0.78 over 5 years, revealing how cardiovascular and diabetes risks intertwine.[60]

Retinal imaging’s accessibility makes it perfect for widespread screening. A model detecting early kidney problems from eye photos achieved an AUC of 0.81, enabling quick specialist referrals when needed.[61] Bora’s team created algorithms that predict future diabetic retinopathy risk with AUCs of 0.79 (internal) and 0.70 (external validation), helping prevent vision loss through timely intervention.[62] Different imaging techniques expand screening options. Liu’s group used OCT images with a lesion-aware attention network, achieving 91.68% accuracy for detecting diabetic kidney disease.[63] Sridevi showed how combining CNNs with telemedicine platforms improves remote diagnosis accuracy, particularly benefiting underserved areas.[64] Perhaps most impressively, Sabanayagam’s algorithm detects chronic kidney disease from retinal photos with an AUC of 0.911, demonstrating how one image can reveal multiple health risks.[65]

Natural language processing in diabetes

NLP unlocks valuable insights hidden in medical records, clinical notes, and other text sources. This technology promises to transform diabetes prediction by making sense of unstructured information that traditional analysis misses.

The sheer volume of text in healthcare requires automated processing. NLP converts messy clinical notes into organized data that machine learning can analyze. One review found this shift from manual to automated methods has accelerated dramatically, reflecting NLP’s growing importance in chronic disease research.[66] By extracting key concepts from discharge summaries and nursing notes, NLP reveals patient histories and risk factors that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Real-world applications prove NLP’s worth. Researchers built an alcohol misuse classifier that achieved 0.78 AUC with 56% sensitivity from electronic records. Since lifestyle factors like drinking significantly impact diabetes risk, this demonstrates how NLP can predict health outcomes from clinical narratives.[67] Even more impressive, Schwartz’s team created an NLP algorithm that identifies prediabetes discussions with 98% precision and recall. Catching prediabetes early allows intervention before full diabetes develops.[68]

NLP also helps predict serious outcomes. Ye’s group combined clinical notes with machine learning to predict mortality in critically ill diabetes patients, achieving an outstanding 0.97 AUC. This shows NLP’s potential for handling complex medical scenarios where multiple factors interact.[69] By understanding not just what doctors write but what patients say, NLP provides a more complete picture of diabetes management challenges.

Social media represents an untapped data source. A review of 87 studies showed NLP can extract real-world diabetes insights from online patient discussions, complementing traditional clinical data.[70] However, accuracy remains paramount. Juhn and Liu stressed that NLP must reliably extract information from health records to build trustworthy predictive models.[71] For remote care, NLP shows particular promise. Tahayori demonstrated 83% accuracy in predicting patient outcomes with 0.88 AUC, suggesting NLP could enhance telemedicine and enable timely interventions for diabetes patients.[72]

Clinical decision support systems in diabetes management

Combining deep learning and NLP in clinical decision support systems represents healthcare’s cutting edge. These technologies work together to predict diabetes onset, guide patient care, and improve outcomes through intelligent data analysis.

Deep learning excels at finding patterns in complex medical records. Rajkomar’s team showed this powerfully—their neural networks predicted hospital events including mortality with 0.93-0.94 AUROC. Applied to diabetes, such systems could alert doctors to risks and suggest interventions based on each patient’s unique data.‌[73] Meanwhile, NLP extracts meaning from clinical notes that would otherwise remain buried. A major review found machine learning methods now dominate NLP research, with these systems successfully converting unstructured text into actionable insights. For diabetes care, this means understanding complete patient stories—not just lab values—to guide better treatment decisions.[66] When personalized properly, these approaches dramatically improve how engaged patients feel and how well they follow treatment plans.

Conclusion

The combination of telemedicine, AI, and predictive modeling is fundamentally changing diabetes care. These technologies create new possibilities for helping patients, encouraging self-care, and achieving better health outcomes. Yet alongside clear benefits come real challenges around implementation and acceptance that we must address.

Telemedicine has proven itself to be an essential tool for remote diabetes management. Cheng and Kao’s research provides compelling evidence—adding telehealth consultations slashed post-meal glucose swings from 169 mg/dL to 111 mg/dL in newly diagnosed patients (p<0.001).‌[74] When COVID-19 struck, telemedicine became a lifeline. Sotomayor’s review of 317 studies found it successfully maintained diabetes care during lockdowns, though results varied by implementation.[75] Patients embraced virtual care enthusiastically—91.43% reported satisfaction, with most finding it convenient and cost-effective.[9]

AI brings complementary strengths. Smart algorithms analyze patient patterns to predict health trajectories and personalize treatments. Evidence shows AI-enhanced telemedicine reduces HbA1c by 0.37% to 0.71% compared to standard care.[76] Predictive models identify at-risk patients before complications develop, enabling preventive intervention rather than reactive treatment.

However, significant obstacles remain. Technology access varies wildly across communities. Rural and low-income patients may still need face-to-face visits for comprehensive care, even as telemedicine helps with routine monitoring.[77] This digital divide threatens to worsen health disparities unless we ensure equitable access to virtual care tools.

Healthcare providers show mixed feelings too. While doctors (4.06±0.69) and nurses (4.02±0.61) generally support telemedicine, concerns persist about integrating it with other duties and its practical usefulness.[78] Shifting policies and payment structures add complexity to adoption. Education proves vital—when implemented well, telemedicine measurably improves patient self-care skills, with DSMQ scores rising from 6.79 to 7.32 (p=0.0015).[79] Yet without proper training for patients and providers alike, we can’t realize telemedicine’s full potential.

AI technologies raise additional concerns. As healthcare becomes increasingly data-driven, patients worry about privacy and security of their sensitive information. These fears could slow AI adoption unless we establish strong safeguards and clear ethical guidelines that protect patient welfare while enabling innovation.

Moving forward, success requires weaving together telemedicine, AI, and predictive modeling into a coherent system. Healthcare professionals, policymakers, and technology developers must collaborate to build frameworks that maximize benefits while addressing limitations. Only through sustained research, development, and patient-centered design can we fully harness these transformative tools for diabetes care. The technologies exist—now we must ensure they reach everyone who needs them, work reliably in real-world settings, and genuinely improve life for the millions living with diabetes worldwide.

Author contributions

The author is the principal investigator in a project of the Medical University of Plovdiv in Bulgaria titled “Opportunities of telemedicine and generative artificial intelligence for a holistic approach in the management of type 2 diabetes”.

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgements

The authors have no support to report.

References

  • 1. Gómez AM, Henao Carrillo DC, Ré MA, et al. Recommendations on the use of the flash continuous glucose monitoring system in hospitalized patients with diabetes in Latin America. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2024; 16(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13098-024-01362-4
  • 2. Hu ZD, Zhang KP, Huang Y, et al. Compliance to self-monitoring of blood glucose among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and its influential factors: a real-world cross-sectional study based on the Tencent TDF-I blood glucose monitoring platform. Mhealth 2017; 3:25. doi: 10.21037/mhealth.2017.06.01
  • 3. Yahya NS, Mulud ZA, Daud AZ, et al. Challenges in insulin therapy: perspectives of Malaysian diabetes educators. Open Nurs J 2024; 18(1). doi: 10.2174/0118744346331130240715115514
  • 4. Ali SF, Padhi R. Optimal blood glucose regulation of diabetic patients using single network adaptive critics. Optim Control Appl Meth 2011; 32(2):196–214. doi: 10.1002/oca.920
  • 5. Harshini N, Srithar V. An analytical predictive model and secure wed based personalized diabetes monitoring system using stacking ensemble classification. Int Res J Adv Eng Hub 2024; 2(4):967-75. doi: 10.47392/IRJAEH.2024.0135
  • 6. Issa T, Souleymane O, Lishou C. System to assist in the diagnosis of diabetes using ontology and machine learning. Int J Recent Technol Eng 2019; 8(4) doi: 10.35940/ijrte.d4421.118419
  • 7. Gujral UP, Johnson L, Nielsen J, Vellanki P, et al. Preparedness cycle to address transitions in diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic and future outbreaks. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020; 8(1):e001520. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001520
  • 8. Suh MK, Moin T, Woodbridge J, et al. Dynamic self-adaptive remote health monitoring system for diabetics. In: Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society 2012 Aug 28 (pp. 2223-2226). doi: 10.1109/embc.2012.6346404
  • 9. Selim S, Lona H. Outcomes and experience of telemedicine in the management of diabetes mellitus during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Advan Med 2021; 8(5):621. doi: 10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20211467
  • 10. Ma Y, Zhao C, Zhao Y, et al. Telemedicine application in patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2022; 22(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01845-2
  • 11. Sood A, Watts SA, Johnson JK, et al. Telemedicine consultation for patients with diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24(6):385–91. doi: 10.1177/1357633x17704346
  • 12. Faruque LI, Wiebe N, Ehteshami-Afshar A, et al. Effect of telemedicine on glycated hemoglobin in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J 2017; 189(9):E341–64. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150885
  • 13. Scott KC, Karem P, Shifflett K, et al. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24(1):4–12. doi: 10.1177/1357633x16674087
  • 14. Casas LA, Alarcón J, Urbano A, et al. Telemedicine for the management of diabetic patients in a high-complexity Latin American hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09267-0
  • 15. Kamei T, Kanamori T, Yamamoto Y, et al. The use of wearable devices in chronic disease management to enhance adherence and improve telehealth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2022; 28(5):342–59. doi: 10.1177/1357633x20937573
  • 16. Omboni S, Padwal RS, Alessa T, et al. The worldwide impact of telemedicine during COVID-19: current evidence and recommendations for the future. Connected Health 2022; 1:7. doi: 10.20517/ch.2021.03
  • 17. Ziajor S, Tomasik J, Sajdak P, et al. The use of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and detection of complications of diabetes. J Educ Health Sport 2024; 65:11–27. doi: 10.12775/jehs.2024.65.001
  • 18. Takahashi H, Tampo H, Arai Y, et al. Applying artificial intelligence to disease staging: Deep learning for improved staging of diabetic retinopathy. PloS One 2017; 12(6):e0179790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179790
  • 19. Zhu T, Li K, Herrero P, et al. Deep learning for diabetes: a systematic review. J Biomed Health Infor 2020; 25(7):2744–57. doi: 10.1109/jbhi.2020.3040225
  • 20. Jia W, Fisher EB. Application and prospect of artificial intellingence in diabetes care. Med Rev 2023; 3(1):102–4. doi: 10.1515/mr-2022-0039
  • 21. Oka R, Nomura A, Yasugi A, et al. Study protocol for the effects of artificial intelligence (AI)-supported automated nutritional intervention on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther 2019; 10:1151–61. doi: 10.1007/s13300-019-0595-5
  • 22. Huang J, Yeung AM, Armstrong DG, et al. Artificial intelligence for predicting and diagnosing complications of diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2023; 17(1):224–38. doi: 10.1177/19322968221124583
  • 23. Abràmoff MD, Lavin PT, Birch M, et al. Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. NPJ Digit Med 2018; 1(1):39. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0040-6
  • 24. Benjamens S, Dhunnoo P, Mesko B. The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database. NPJ Digital Medicine 2020; 3(1): 1–8. doi: 10.1038/s41746-020-00324-0
  • 25. Bhaskaranand M, Ramachandra C, Bhat S, et al. The value of automated diabetic retinopathy screening with the EyeArt system: a study of more than 100,000 consecutive encounters from people with diabetes. Diabetes Technol Therapeut 2019; 21(11):635–43. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0164
  • 26. Lee AY, Yanagihara RT, Lee CS, et al. Multicenter, head-to-head, real-world validation study of seven automated artificial intelligence diabetic retinopathy screening systems. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(5):1168–75. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1877
  • 27. Wolf RM, Liu TA, Thomas C, et al. The SEE study: safety, efficacy, and equity of implementing autonomous artificial intelligence for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy in youth. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(3):781–7. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1671
  • 28. Keel S, Lee PY, Scheetz J, et al. Feasibility and patient acceptability of a novel artificial intelligence-based screening model for diabetic retinopathy at endocrinology outpatient services: a pilot study. Sci Rep 2018; 8(1):4330. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22612-2
  • 30. Tarumi S, Takeuchi W, Chalkidis G, et al. Leveraging artificial intelligence to improve chronic disease care: methods and application to pharmacotherapy decision support for type-2 diabetes mellitus. Methods Inf Med 2021; 60(S 01):e32–43. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728757
  • 31. Kerr D, Klonoff DC. Digital diabetes data and artificial intelligence: a time for humility not hubris. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13(1):123–7. doi: 10.1177/1932296818796508
  • 32. Li J, Huang J, Zheng L, et al. Application of artificial intelligence in diabetes education and management: present status and promising prospect. Front Pub Health 2020; 8:173. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00173
  • 33. Pelayo C, Hoang J, Mora Pinzón M, et al. Perspectives of latinx patients with diabetes on teleophthalmology, artificial intelligence-based image interpretation, and virtual care: a qualitative study. Telemed Rep 2023; 4(1):317–26. doi: 10.1089/tmr.2023.0045
  • 34. Vettoretti M, Cappon G, Facchinetti A, et al. Advanced diabetes management using artificial intelligence and continuous glucose monitoring sensors. Sensors 2020; 20(14):3870. doi: 10.3390/s20143870
  • 35. Iftikhar M, Saqib M, Qayyum SN, et al. Artificial intelligence-driven transformations in diabetes care: a comprehensive literature review. Ann Med Surg 2024; 86(9):5334–42. doi: 10.1097/ms9.0000000000002369
  • 36. Dankwa-Mullan I, Rivo M, Sepulveda M, et al. Transforming diabetes care through artificial intelligence: the future is here. Popul Health Manag 2019; 22(3):229–42. doi: 10.1089/pop.2018.0129
  • 37. Contreras I, Vehi J. Artificial intelligence for diabetes management and decision support: literature review. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20(5):e10775. doi: 10.2196/10775
  • 38. Chauhan M. The use and importance of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of diabetes related peripheral neuropathy. Int J Health Sci Res 2023; 13(3). doi: 10.52403/ijhsr.20230326
  • 39. Li L, Cheng Y, Ji W, et al. Machine learning for predicting diabetes risk in western China adults. Diabetol Metabol Syndr 2023; 15(1):165. doi: 10.1186/s13098-023-01112-y
  • 40. Khalate V, Sukeshkumar B. Diabetes prediction using machine learning algorithm. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 2024; 12(3). doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2024.59256
  • 41. Vehí J, Contreras I, Oviedo S, et al. Prediction and prevention of hypoglycaemic events in type-1 diabetic patients using machine learning. Health Inform J 2020; 26(1):703–18. doi: 10.1177/1460458219850682
  • 42. Breton MD, Patek SD, Lv D, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and insulin informed advisory system with automated titration and dosing of insulin reduces glucose variability in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 2018; 20(8):531–40. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0079
  • 43. Bellemo V, Lim ZW, Lim G, et al. Artificial intelligence using deep learning to screen for referable and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in Africa: a clinical validation study. Lancet Digit Health 2019; 1(1):e35–44. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(19)30004-4
  • 44. Channa R, Wolf R, Abràmoff MD. Autonomous artificial intelligence in diabetic retinopathy: from algorithm to clinical application. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2021; 15(3):695–8. doi: 10.1177/1932296820909900
  • 45. Guan Z, Li H, Liu R, et al. Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: advancements, opportunities, and challenges. Cell Rep Med 2023; 4(10). doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101213
  • 46. Edlitz Y, Segal E. Prediction of type 2 diabetes mellitus onset using logistic regression-based scorecards. Elife 2022; 11:e71862. doi: 10.7554/elife.71862
  • 47. Joshi RD, Dhakal CK. Predicting type 2 diabetes using logistic regression and machine learning approaches. Int J Environ Res Pub Health 2021; 18(14):7346. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147346.
  • 48. Madhu B, Aerranagula V, Mahomad R, et al. Techniques of machine learning for the purpose of predicting diabetes risk in PIMA Indians. In: E3S Web of Conferences 2023; 430:01151. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202343001151
  • 49. Adigun O, Okikiola F, Yekini N, et al. Classification of diabetes types using machine learning. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 2022; 13(9). doi: 10.14569/ijacsa.2022.0130918
  • 50. Fazakis N, Kocsis O, Dritsas E, et al. Machine learning tools for long-term type 2 diabetes risk prediction. IEEE Access 2021; 9:103737–57. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3098691
  • 51. Hounguè P, Bigirimana AG. Leveraging pima dataset to diabetes prediction: case study of deep neural network. J Comput Communic 2022; 10(11):15–28. doi: 10.4236/jcc.2022.1011002
  • 52. Perveen S, Shahbaz M, Keshavjee K, et al. Prognostic modeling and prevention of diabetes using machine learning technique. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1):13805. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49563-6
  • 53. Patro KK, Allam JP, Sanapala U, et al. An effective correlation-based data modeling framework for automatic diabetes prediction using machine and deep learning techniques. BMC Bioinformatics 2023; 24(1):372. doi: 10.1186/s12859-023-05488-6
  • 54. Dritsas E, Trigka M. Data-driven machine-learning methods for diabetes risk prediction. Sensors 2022; 22(14):5304. doi: 10.3390/s22145304
  • 55. Perdana A, Hermawan A, Avianto D. Analyze important features of PIMA Indian database for diabetes prediction using KNN. Jurnal Sisfokom (Sistem Informasi dan Komputer). 2023; 12(1):70–5. doi: 10.32736/sisfokom.v12i1.1598
  • 56. Poplin R, Varadarajan AV, Blumer K, et al. Prediction of cardiovascular risk factors from retinal fundus photographs via deep learning. Nat Biomed Eng 2018; 2(3):158–64. doi: 10.1038/s41551-018-0195-0
  • 57. Cervera DR, Smith L, Diaz-Santana L, et al. Identifying peripheral neuropathy in color fundus photographs based on deep learning. Diagnostics 2021; 11(11):1943. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11111943
  • 58. Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA 2016; 316(22):2402–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17216
  • 59. Ravaut M, Harish V, Sadeghi H, et al. Development and validation of a machine learning model using administrative health data to predict onset of type 2 diabetes. JAMA Network Open 2021; 4(5):e2111315. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11315
  • 60. Choi BG, Rha SW, Kim SW, et al. Machine learning for the prediction of new-onset diabetes mellitus during 5-year follow-up in non-diabetic patients with cardiovascular risks. Yonsei Medical Journal 2019; 60(2):191–9. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2019.60.2.191
  • 61. Kang EY, Hsieh YT, Li CH, et al. Deep learning-based detection of early renal function impairment using retinal fundus images: model development and validation. JMIR Medical Informatics 2020; 8(11):e23472. doi: 10.2196/23472
  • 62. Bora A, Balasubramanian S, Babenko B, et al. Predicting the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy using deep learning. Lancet Dig Health 2021; 3(1):e10-9. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30250-8
  • 63. Liu Y, Zhang F, Gao X, et al. Lesion-aware attention network for diabetic nephropathy diagnosis with optical coherence tomography images. Front Med 2023; 10:1259478. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1259478
  • 64. Sridevi M, Archana T, Radha M, et al. Image processing and deep learning integration for enhancing diabetic retinopathy diagnosis through advanced telemedicine. Int J Recent Innov Trends Comput 2023; 11(8). doi: 10.17762/ijritcc.v11i8.9081
  • 65. Sabanayagam C, Xu D, Ting DS, et al. A deep learning algorithm to detect chronic kidney disease from retinal photographs in community-based populations. Lancet Digit Health 2020;2(6):e295–302. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30063-7
  • 66. Sheikhalishahi S, Miotto R, Dudley JT, et al. Natural language processing of clinical notes on chronic diseases: systematic review. JMIR Medical Informatics 2019; 7(2):e12239. doi: 10.2196/12239
  • 67. Afshar M, Phillips A, Karnik N, et al. Natural language processing and machine learning to identify alcohol misuse from the electronic health record in trauma patients: development and internal validation. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 2019; 26(3):254–61. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy166
  • 68. Schwartz JL, Tseng E, Maruthur NM, et al. Identification of prediabetes discussions in unstructured clinical documentation: validation of a natural language processing algorithm. JMIR Medical Informatics 2022; 10(2):e29803. doi: 10.2196/29803
  • 69. Ye J, Yao L, Shen J, et al. Predicting mortality in critically ill patients with diabetes using machine learning and clinical notes. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20:1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01318-4
  • 70. Gonzalez-Hernandez G, Sarker A, O’Connor K, et al. Capturing the patient’s perspective: a review of advances in natural language processing of health-related text. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26(01):214–27. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1606506
  • 71. Juhn Y, Liu H. Artificial intelligence approaches using natural language processing to advance EHR-based clinical research. J Aller Clin Immunol 2020; 145(2):463–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.12.897
  • 72. Tahayori B, Chini-Foroush N, Akhlaghi H. Advanced natural language processing technique to predict patient disposition based on emergency triage notes. Emerg Med Australas 2021; 33(3):480–4. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13656
  • 73. Rajkomar A, Oren E, Chen K, et al. Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records. NPJ Digital Medicine 2018; 1(1):18. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0029-1
  • 74. Cheng PC, Kao CH. Telemedicine assists in the management of proatherogenic dyslipidemia and postprandial glucose variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study. Endocrine Connections 2021; 10(7):789–95. doi: 10.1530/ec-21-0209
  • 75. Sotomayor F, Hernandez R, Malek R, et al. The effect of telemedicine in glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes during the COVID-19 era—a systematic review. J Clin Med 2023; 12(17):5673. doi: 10.3390/jcm12175673
  • 76. Dhediya R, Chadha M, Bhattacharya AD, et al. Role of telemedicine in diabetes management. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2023; 17(3):775–81. doi: 10.1177/19322968221081133
  • 77. Masepia BD, Isworo A. Telemedicine for the self-management of type 2 diabetes: A literature review. Jurnal Keperawatan Soedirman 2021; 16(1). doi: 10.20884/1.jks.2021.16.1.1548
  • 78. H. Ayatollahi H, Mirani N, Nazari F, et al. Iranian healthcare professionals’ perspectives about factors influencing the use of telemedicine in diabetes management. World J Diabetes 2018; 9(6):92. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v9.i6.92
  • 79. Bawal DY, Cunanan EC, Kho SA. The effect of telemedicine on self-care activities of patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and patient satisfaction during the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic: A repeated cross-sectional study. J Med University Santo Tomas 2024;8(1):1354–61. doi: 10.35460/2546-1621.2023-0066
login to comment