Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
210,049 studies31 sourcesUpdated 13 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-SAInternational Journal of Diabetes and Technology

Domain-based Basal and Daytime Ambulatory Glycemic Exposure Metrics Derived from Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Real-world Clinic-based Study

Abstract

Background: Standard continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics summarize whole-day exposure but do not explicitly localize glycemic burden to nocturnal basal and daytime ambulatory domains. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate time-normalized domain metrics across oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-derived phenotypes and assess their relationships with established CGM measures, robustness, reproducibility, and incremental information. Methods: We analyzed paired OGTT and FreeStyle Libre data from 253 clinic participants. CGM was partitioned into 00:00–<06:00 and 06:00–<24:00 domains. Area of basal glycemia (ABG) and area of prandial/daytime ambulatory glycemia (APG) quantified mean nocturnal and daytime exposure; incremental ABG (iABG)/incremental APG (iAPG) and deficit ABG/deficit APG quantified above- and below-anchor exposure relative to 80/90 mg/dL. Participant-level phenotype comparisons, correlations, alternative-anchor and time-window sensitivity analyses, split-period agreement, covariate-adjusted models, repeated cross-validation, and conventional-category analyses were performed. Results: Corrected phenotype counts were NoDM 9, increased IR 7, midzone glycemia 26, prediabetes 78, and diabetes 133. Mean ABG/APG increased from 80.45/86.38 mg/dL in NoDM to 112.17/124.99 mg/dL in diabetes. Phenotype effects were significant for ABG (ε2 = 0.266), APG (0.371), iABG (0.282), and iAPG (0.390; all P < 0.001). iAPG correlated with HbA1c (rho = 0.751), OGTT area under the curve glucose (0.742), mean CGM glucose (0.986), time above range >180 mg/dL (0.858), and time >140 mg/dL (0.955). Findings were stable across alternative anchors and ± 1-h windows; ICC (A, 1) was 0.795 for APG and 0.788 for iAPG. Associations persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Temporal-domain contrasts added only modest information beyond mean glucose and none after excluding diabetes. Conclusions: ABG/APG metrics reproducibly localize glycemic exposure to nocturnal and daytime domains. They complement rather than replace established whole-day CGM metrics and require prospective external validation and outcome benchmarking.

Related

  1. Impact of antenatal corticosteroid exposure on glycemic control in preterm infants assessed by continuous glucose monitoring: preliminary results from a single center study
    Irene Bonato, Andrea Calandrino, Samuele Caruggi +7
    Frontiers in endocrinologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull text1 citedEndocrinology & metabolismEurope PMCCrossref
  2. Changes in CGM-Derived Glycemic Metrics and Triglyceride-Glucose Index During Ramadan in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring
    Ayman Al Hayek, Wael M. Al Zahrani, Mo’men Al Ajlouni +2
    Journal of Diabetes Science and TechnologyPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textPhysiologyPMC
  3. Glycemic patterns from continuous glucose monitoring devices among women with regular and irregular menstrual cycles
    Z. Wang, G. Asokan, B. Zhang +7
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv
  4. Glycemic Dynamics and Management Strategies in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes During Ramadan: A Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Narrative Review.
    Abubakr Sowilem, Abdelrhman K Mohamed, Emad Wissa +2
    CureusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEndocrinology & metabolismEurope PMC
  5. Alogliptin-Pioglitazone and Insulin Regimen for Inpatient Glycemic Control: A Randomized Continuous Glucose Monitoring Pilot Trial
    Parson Camuto, Dioze Guadagnini, Heloisa B. Assalin +3
    AACE Endocrinology and DiabetesPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full text1 citedEndocrinology & metabolismPMC
BibTeX
@article{shinde2026domainbased,
  title = {{Domain-based Basal and Daytime Ambulatory Glycemic Exposure Metrics Derived from Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Real-world Clinic-based Study}},
  author = {Suresh N. Shinde and Rituparna Suresh Shinde and Succhietra Yogesh Bhangaaley},
  journal = {International Journal of Diabetes and Technology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_35_26},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_35_26},
  note = {CC BY-NC-SA},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Domain-based Basal and Daytime Ambulatory Glycemic Exposure Metrics Derived from Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Real-world Clinic-based Study
AU  - Suresh N. Shinde
AU  - Rituparna Suresh Shinde
AU  - Succhietra Yogesh Bhangaaley
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - International Journal of Diabetes and Technology
DO  - 10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_35_26
UR  - https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_35_26
AB  - Background: Standard continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics summarize whole-day exposure but do not explicitly localize glycemic burden to nocturnal basal and daytime ambulatory domains. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate time-normalized domain metrics across oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-derived phenotypes and assess their relationships with established CGM measures, robustness, reproducibility, and incremental information. Methods: We analyzed paired OGTT and FreeStyle Libre data from 253 clinic participants. CGM was partitioned into 00:00–<06:00 and 06:00–<24:00 domains. Area of basal glycemia (ABG) and area of prandial/daytime ambulatory glycemia (APG) quantified mean nocturnal and daytime exposure; incremental ABG (iABG)/incremental APG (iAPG) and deficit ABG/deficit APG quantified above- and below-anchor exposure relative to 80/90 mg/dL. Participant-level phenotype comparisons, correlations, alternative-anchor and time-window sensitivity analyses, split-period agreement, covariate-adjusted models, repeated cross-validation, and conventional-category analyses were performed. Results: Corrected phenotype counts were NoDM 9, increased IR 7, midzone glycemia 26, prediabetes 78, and diabetes 133. Mean ABG/APG increased from 80.45/86.38 mg/dL in NoDM to 112.17/124.99 mg/dL in diabetes. Phenotype effects were significant for ABG (ε2 = 0.266), APG (0.371), iABG (0.282), and iAPG (0.390; all P < 0.001). iAPG correlated with HbA1c (rho = 0.751), OGTT area under the curve glucose (0.742), mean CGM glucose (0.986), time above range >180 mg/dL (0.858), and time >140 mg/dL (0.955). Findings were stable across alternative anchors and ± 1-h windows; ICC (A, 1) was 0.795 for APG and 0.788 for iAPG. Associations persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Temporal-domain contrasts added only modest information beyond mean glucose and none after excluding diabetes. Conclusions: ABG/APG metrics reproducibly localize glycemic exposure to nocturnal and daytime domains. They complement rather than replace established whole-day CGM metrics and require prospective external validation and outcome benchmarking.
SN  - 2949-8457
ER  -