There was an article touting Japanese research that has to do with CGMs giving improved outcomes for those with DM. The reported wrote, “Researchers at the University of Tokyo have identified a simple, noninvasive method for assessing blood glucose regulation—an essential factor in diabetes risk”
Here’s a link to the actual paper if you’re interested:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00819-5
I don’t understand exactly what they discovered.
Researchers at the University of Tokyo have identified a simple, noninvasive method for assessing blood glucose regulation—an essential factor in diabetes risk.
Did they discover CGM?!
That is not what the study is about. The following is the abstract. It was a study that iiuc is something many of us users of CGMs know, that they are a great tool for better glucose management. Also that they are likely a better tool for diagnosing those with undiagnosed diabetes (likely T2DM)
Efficiently assessing glucose handling capacity is a critical public health challenge. This study assessed the utility of relatively easy-to-measure continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived indices in estimating glucose handling capacities calculated from resource-intensive clamp tests.
We conducted a prospective study of 64 individuals without prior diabetes diagnosis. The study performed CGM, oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT), and hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp tests. We validated CGM-derived indices characteristics using an independent dataset from another country and mathematical models with simulated data.
A CGM-derived index reflecting the autocorrelation function of glucose levels (AC_Var) is significantly correlated with clamp-derived disposition index (DI), a well-established measure of glucose handling capacity and predictor of diabetes onset. Multivariate and machine learning models indicate AC_Var’s contribution to predicting clamp-derived DI independent from other CGM-derived indices. The model using CGM-measured glucose standard deviation and AC_Var outperforms models using commonly used diabetes diagnostic indices, such as fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, and OGTT measures, in predicting clamp-derived DI. Mathematical simulations also demonstrate the association of AC_Var with DI.
CGM-derived indices, including AC_Var, serve as valuable tools for predicting glucose handling capacities in populations without prior diabetes diagnosis. We develop a web application that calculates these CGM-derived indices (https://cgm-ac-mean-std.streamlit.app/).
I’m with Eric, it doesn’t sound like they’ve actually developed anything, more like they’re using standard OGTT and a “clamp” test (admittedly I don’t know what these are) plus charts of some sort to theorize an outcome. Either that or the article obfuscates the non-invasive methodology used or I’ve become very bad at teasing out the facts. I don’t see any fantastic discovery here, so what am I missing?
Clamp tests are interesting. There are 2 main types.
Hyperglycemic is where they keep your BG elevated by infusing glucose directly into your blood. The test measures how well your body is supplying insulin. For example, if they need to keep dumping more glucose into you, then obviously your body is supplying insulin. Otherwise your BG would stay high without them needing to continuously put more glucose into you!
The other one is the euglycemic clamp test. (eu means good. In this case, a “good” BG level.) They infuse insulin and glucose to get you to a normal BG level steady state. At that point they can measure how well your body is able to use insulin. For example, if someone needs more insulin infused then they have less insulin sensitivity than someone who needs less insulin infused to maintain the steady state.
In both cases, the term clamp refers to them clamping the BG at a certain level.
That exactly the point of my post’s title. The science reporter at Medical Express jumped to false conclusions as to what the study was about.
These slip shod idiots are likely the number one reason that so many people distrust science. They hype minor or non existent findings and put it out with a 72 point headline.
Later there may be a retraction in 8 point, or hyping a study that has opposite findings.
Coffee is good, bad, good, bad ad infinitum If they took the time to read scientific studies carefully and not jump to conclusions people might have more faith in scientific research.
Just to clear the record though, coffee is GOOD! 
I was weaned from Mom’s milk to Cafe au lait. Drink it neat now a days, black no sugar.
Thanks for the info!