Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper evaluates a retrieval-grounded LLM-based conversational agent (CA) for CGM interpretation and diabetes counseling support against clinician-authored responses. In a blinded multi-rater evaluation by 6 senior clinicians, the CA received significantly higher quality scores than clinician responses across several dimensions, including empathy and actionability. While demonstrating potential as an adjunct tool, the study cautions against autonomous therapeutic decision-making based solely on the CA's output.
LLM-generated diabetes counseling responses aren't just as good as clinicians' – they might be better, especially when it comes to empathy and actionability.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is central to diabetes care, but explaining CGM patterns clearly and empathetically remains time-intensive. Evidence for retrieval-grounded large language model (LLM) systems in CGM-informed counseling remains limited. To evaluate whether a retrieval-grounded LLM-based conversational agent (CA) could support patient understanding of CGM data and preparation for routine diabetes consultations. We developed a retrieval-grounded LLM-based CA for CGM interpretation and diabetes counseling support. The system generated plain-language responses while avoiding individualized therapeutic advice. Twelve CGM-informed cases were constructed from publicly available datasets. Between Oct 2025 and Feb 2026, 6 senior UK diabetes clinicians each reviewed 2 assigned cases and answered 24 questions. In a blinded multi-rater evaluation, each CA-generated and clinician-authored response was independently rated by 3 clinicians on 6 quality dimensions. Safety flags and perceived source labels were also recorded. Primary analyses used linear mixed-effects models. A total of 288 unique responses (144 CA and 144 clinician) generated 864 ratings. The CA received higher quality scores than clinician responses (mean 4.37 vs 3.58), with an estimated mean difference of 0.782 points (95% CI 0.692-0.872; P<.001). The largest differences were for empathy (1.062, 95% CI 0.948-1.177) and actionability (0.992, 95% CI 0.877-1.106). Safety flag distributions were similar, with major concerns rare in both groups (3/432, 0.7% each). Retrieval-grounded LLM systems may have value as adjunct tools for CGM review, patient education, and preconsultation preparation. However, these findings do not support autonomous therapeutic decision-making or unsupervised real-world use.