Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Prevalence, duration, and clinical implications of Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) measurement limit capping in type 1 diabetes

doi: 10.64898/2026.05.13.26353094

Figure Lengend Snippet: Proposed amended reporting format for CGM sensor measurement limit capping, illustrated using two exemplar 14-day windows from the Aleppo 2017 Replace-BG trial (Dexcom G4 Platinum) for the participant with the highest proportion of upper-limit capped readings (A-D) and the participant with the highest proportion of lower-limit capped readings (E-H). Panels A and E show the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) with median glucose (red line) and shaded 25–75% and 10–90% interpercentile ranges. Grey shaded bands above and below the dashed device detection limit lines (400 and 40 mg/dL) indicate the glucose range that cannot be measured by the device. Panels B and F show glucose-range exposure as a stacked bar chart, with black segments at the top and bottom representing readings at or beyond the device detection limits, extending the standard display. Panels C and G summarise conventional window-level metrics alongside device-limit capping statistics (frequency and longest run duration), and panels D and H show the glucose frequency distribution with lower and upper capped bins shaded black. These display elements are proposed as optional additions to standard CGM reporting software, to be shown only when capping is present.

Article Snippet: The Brown, Lynch, and Wadwa studies used the Dexcom G6 CGM, and Aleppo used the Dexcom G4 Platinum.

Techniques: Software

Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Prevalence, duration, and clinical implications of Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) measurement limit capping in type 1 diabetes

doi: 10.64898/2026.05.13.26353094

Figure Lengend Snippet: Proposed amended reporting format for CGM sensor measurement limit capping, illustrated using two exemplar 14-day windows from the Aleppo 2017 Replace-BG trial (Dexcom G4 Platinum) for the participant with the highest proportion of upper-limit capped readings (A-D) and the participant with the highest proportion of lower-limit capped readings (E-H). Panels A and E show the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) with median glucose (red line) and shaded 25–75% and 10–90% interpercentile ranges. Grey shaded bands above and below the dashed device detection limit lines (400 and 40 mg/dL) indicate the glucose range that cannot be measured by the device. Panels B and F show glucose-range exposure as a stacked bar chart, with black segments at the top and bottom representing readings at or beyond the device detection limits, extending the standard display. Panels C and G summarise conventional window-level metrics alongside device-limit capping statistics (frequency and longest run duration), and panels D and H show the glucose frequency distribution with lower and upper capped bins shaded black. These display elements are proposed as optional additions to standard CGM reporting software, to be shown only when capping is present.

Article Snippet: Our BGM comparison is restricted to a single arm of a single trial using the older Dexcom G4 Platinum sensor (mean absolute relative difference (MARD) ∼14%), which has lower accuracy than the Dexcom G6 (MARD ∼9%) used in three of our four datasets.

Techniques: Software

Journal: medRxiv

Article Title: Prevalence, duration, and clinical implications of Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) measurement limit capping in type 1 diabetes

doi: 10.64898/2026.05.13.26353094

Figure Lengend Snippet: Proposed amended reporting format for CGM sensor measurement limit capping, illustrated using two exemplar 14-day windows from the Aleppo 2017 Replace-BG trial (Dexcom G4 Platinum) for the participant with the highest proportion of upper-limit capped readings (A-D) and the participant with the highest proportion of lower-limit capped readings (E-H). Panels A and E show the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) with median glucose (red line) and shaded 25–75% and 10–90% interpercentile ranges. Grey shaded bands above and below the dashed device detection limit lines (400 and 40 mg/dL) indicate the glucose range that cannot be measured by the device. Panels B and F show glucose-range exposure as a stacked bar chart, with black segments at the top and bottom representing readings at or beyond the device detection limits, extending the standard display. Panels C and G summarise conventional window-level metrics alongside device-limit capping statistics (frequency and longest run duration), and panels D and H show the glucose frequency distribution with lower and upper capped bins shaded black. These display elements are proposed as optional additions to standard CGM reporting software, to be shown only when capping is present.

Article Snippet: Upper-limit capping prevalence did not differ significantly between the Dexcom G4 dataset (Aleppo, n=226) and the three combined Dexcom G6 datasets (Brown, Lynch, Wadwa; n=722) for percentage of readings at the upper cap (median 0.116% vs 0.151%, p=0.091), total upper-cap time (388 vs 300 minutes, p=0.171), or number of upper-cap runs (7 vs 8, p=0.202) (Supplementary table S14).

Techniques: Software