Published on in Vol 24, No 8 (2022): August

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
Overview of Artificial Intelligence–Driven Wearable Devices for Diabetes: Scoping Review

Overview of Artificial Intelligence–Driven Wearable Devices for Diabetes: Scoping Review

Overview of Artificial Intelligence–Driven Wearable Devices for Diabetes: Scoping Review


1AI Center for Precision Health, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar

2Center for Digital Health and Precision Medicine, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar

Corresponding Author:

Arfan Ahmed, PhD

AI Center for Precision Health

Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar

Education City, Qatar Foundation

PO Box 24144



Phone: 974 4492 8826


Background: Prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased over the last few decades with 1.5 million deaths reported in 2012 alone. Traditionally, analyzing patients with diabetes has remained a largely invasive approach. Wearable devices (WDs) make use of sensors historically reserved for hospital settings. WDs coupled with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms show promise to help understand and conclude meaningful information from the gathered data and provide advanced and clinically meaningful analytics.

Objective: This review aimed to provide an overview of AI-driven WD features for diabetes and their use in monitoring diabetes-related parameters.

Methods: We searched 7 of the most popular bibliographic databases using 3 groups of search terms related to diabetes, WDs, and AI. A 2-stage process was followed for study selection: reading abstracts and titles followed by full-text screening. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the data.

Results: From an initial 3872 studies, we report the features from 37 studies post filtering according to our predefined inclusion criteria. Most of the studies targeted type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or both (21/37, 57%). Many studies (15/37, 41%) reported blood glucose as their main measurement. More than half of the studies (21/37, 57%) had the aim of estimation and prediction of glucose or glucose level monitoring. Over half of the reviewed studies looked at wrist-worn devices. Only 41% of the study devices were commercially available. We observed the use of multiple sensors with photoplethysmography sensors being most prevalent in 32% (12/37) of studies. Studies reported and compared >1 machine learning (ML) model with high levels of accuracy. Support vector machine was the most reported (13/37, 35%), followed by random forest (12/37, 32%).

Conclusions: This review is the most extensive work, to date, summarizing WDs that use ML for people with diabetes, and provides research direction to those wanting to further contribute to this emerging field. Given the advancements in WD technologies replacing the need for invasive hospital setting devices, we see great advancement potential in this domain. Further work is needed to validate the ML approaches on clinical data from WDs and provide meaningful analytics that could serve as data gathering, monitoring, prediction, classification, and recommendation devices in the context of diabetes.

J Med Internet Res 2022;24(8):e36010




Diabetes, also known as diabetes mellitus, is a metabolic disease characterized by elevated blood glucose levels, which can ultimately result in many complications such as heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, leg amputation, vision loss, and nerve damage [1]. As the world embarks on a centennial anniversary since the development of insulin to manage glucose levels of people with diabetes, we have seen remarkable advances during these 100 years, with improved life expectancy and quality of life [2]. Noncommunicable diseases such as metabolic syndrome and diabetes continue to be among the leading causes of disability and mortality [3]. The number of cases and their prevalence have steadily increased over the last few decades. According to the World Health Organization, 1.5 million people died in 2012 alone because of diabetes, with an additional 2.1 million deaths caused by a higher than optimal blood glucose level, resulting in increased risks of cardiovascular and other diseases. A total of 463 million people, globally, were affected by type 2 diabetes (T2D) mellitus in 2019. Furthermore, it is predicted that 700 million individuals would develop diabetes by 2045 [4]. Although the World Health Organization acknowledges that there is no one fixed solution and that a coordinated multicomponent intervention is needed, it outlines technology as one of the key stakeholders in reducing the impact of diabetes in addition to input from governments, health care providers, people with diabetes, civil society, food producers and manufacturers, and suppliers of medicine [1].

Despite the advancements in blood glucose monitoring techniques, the mainstream detection technology remains largely invasive. The commonly used home electronic glucometers involve people with diabetes invasively self-pricking to draw blood from fingertips, opening them up to infections as well as stress and pain caused by the procedure that is often expected multiple times a day.

The availability and advancements of smart devices, such as smartphones, have made the monitoring of diabetes-related features more accessible. Many studies have examined this much welcomed technology [5,6]. These normally require the use of an external attachable sensor, and monitoring is then delivered via an app or a separate continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device, which can still be semi-invasive and require a connection range via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signals. The use of completely noninvasive technology in the form of wearable devices (WDs) for regulating and monitoring glucose levels for people with diabetes is a fairly new concept and is in its infancy. Commercially available devices, such as smart watches and smart bands, can take measurements using sensors that researchers have reported on their usefulness in diabetes monitoring [7,8]. Such technologies can be affordable and easily accessible, and when used properly, can improve the quality of life of patients in a noninvasive manner. With their widespread commercial use and acceptance owing to their fashionable nature, globally researchers have a unique opportunity to provide medical care away from hospital settings and bulky invasive hardware in an affordable manner without requiring expert assistance. WDs have an increasing capacity, although not at the level of smartphones, to gather, store, transmit, and process data; the features can then be used for management, treatment, assessment, and sometimes even prediction. Furthermore, many WDs are normally connected via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth to external devices, such as a smartphone, where computationally expensive processing is performed for the simple purpose of storage or as a gateway to cloud spaces. Cloud storage can facilitate monitoring by clinicians without the need of hospitalization. Several useful sensors already exist incorporated into WDs similar to those of smartphones, including electrocardiogram (ECG), photoplethysmography, galvanic skin response, near infrared, and accelerometer sensors. WDs have additional advantages when it comes to sensing physiological signs, such as heart rate, ECG, and skin temperature. This is largely owing to their close contact with the wearer, which is of particular interest when monitoring diabetes-related metrics.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broader term that encompasses machine learning (ML). Technically, ML is a subset of AI, often loosely used interchangeable buzzwords. As a high-level definition, AI is anything related to making machines smarter (eg, computational search algorithms). ML, on the other hand, is an AI system that can self-learn via an algorithm, and as a result, such a system becomes smarter without human intervention over time (eg, classifying an outcome) [9]. Deep learning, on the other hand, is another branch of AI that attempts to mimic the human brain in terms of how it processes large amounts of data and has already shown success rates in areas such as diabetic retinopathy screening [10]. ML principles have been applied in clinical settings to build algorithms to support predictive models for the risk of development of diabetes [11]. AI has also been shown to provide useful management tools to deal with large amounts of data [12]. Owing to the large amount of data measurable through continuous monitoring via wearables, AI can be used to further analyze the acquired data. This can help to understand and draw meaningful information from the gathered data and provide advanced and clinically meaningful analytics. Many researchers have adapted existing WDs not originally intended for diabetes management and adapted the sensory information for use in diabetes-related metrics, and some have created prototypes especially designed for diabetes [13,14]. WDs are used for a variety of reasons, including monitoring, prevention, glucose estimation, diagnostics, classification, and prevention, but the number of studies that are reported are low in comparison with those that make use of smartphones for example. With the increased potential outreach of WDs globally, especially when combined with the ever-expanding field of AI-incorporating ML algorithms, the correct management of large amounts of data and processing with ML algorithms holds great potential for quality-of-life improvement in people with diabetes [15].

Research Problem and Aim

Many studies have been conducted on AI-based WDs for diabetes. Exploring the features of AI-based WDs reported in these studies is important for developers, patients, health care providers, and researchers to identify the recent advances and challenges in this area. Although several reviews were conducted in this area, (1) they were focused on smartphones and AI for diabetes [16-18], (2) they were focused on WDs in general rather than AI-based WDs [17,19], and (3) they did not summarize the features of AI-based WDs in a thorough manner [16-19]. Therefore, we aimed to explore the features of AI-based WDs for diabetes as reported in previous studies. We believe that this review will allow developers and researchers to advance further in this field by highlighting the gaps and opportunities.


This scoping review was carried out to satisfy this study’s goals of exploring features of AI-driven wearable technologies for diabetes. In order to construct a complete scoping review, the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [20] was used as a guiding approach. The PRISMA-ScR checklist is shown in Multimedia Appendix 1.

Search Strategy

Search Sources

The article search for this review began by identifying all relevant studies using 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We scanned the first 100 hits retrieved by searching Google Scholar. The reason being Google Scholar typically returns several items that are sorted by relevance to the search topic. Bibliographic collection was conducted from October 25 to October 30, 2021. The reference lists of the included articles were then searched for additional sources. We also checked relevant articles that cited the included studies using Google Scholar’s “cited by” tool (forward reference list checking).

Search Terms

A number of different sets of keywords were designed to search databases depending on each database’s search term limit; as IEEE and Google Scholar have term limits, search queries were truncated based on the required limit. We considered the research topics included in the database to complete our search queries. We combined Diabetic OR Diabetes keywords describing the relevant population (people with diabetes), with each kind of relevant intervention to wearables (wearable* OR smart watch* OR smart* OR smartwatch* OR fitness band* OR flexible band* OR wristband* OR smart insole* OR bracelet*) and AI (Artificial Intelligence OR Machine Learning OR Deep Learning OR Decision tree OR K-Nearest Neighbor* OR Support vector machine* OR Recurrent neural network* OR convolutional neural network* OR Artificial neural network* OR Naïve Bayes OR Naive Bayes OR Fuzzy Logic OR K-Means OR Random Forest OR LSTM OR autoencoder OR boltzmann machine OR deep belief network). For example, the following search terms were applied in Google Scholar: (Artificial Intelligence OR Machine Learning OR Deep Learning OR convolutional neural network* OR Artificial neural network*) AND (wearable* OR smart watch* OR smart*) AND (Diabetic OR Diabetes). All the databases had search time period criteria that were enabled and set with the search query from 2015 to present; in addition, the language checkbox in each database was set to English only. Full search terms for each electronic database searched are available in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Studies were chosen based on the criteria in Textbox 1. Peer-reviewed articles and published protocols were included only if they were related to wearables that could be used by an individual outside of a clinical setting. They also had to use AI for the purpose of diabetes and be classified as noninvasive. For full inclusion and exclusion criteria refer to Textbox 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Publications that are in the English language.
  2. Peer-reviewed articles including proposals.
  3. Population with or suspected to have diabetes. No restrictions regarding their age, gender, and ethnicity.
  4. Commercial, medical, or prototypes but with condition wearable device and uses artificial intelligence (AI).
  5. Wearable usable by individual person not with help of clinical staff or plugged in to hospital setting.
  6. Wearables using methods for diabetes analysis are to be noninvasive.

Exclusion criteria

  1. Any study that does not contain AI as an intervention.
  2. People with other diseases, health care providers, and caregivers as population.
  3. Not a wearable device (example artificial implant or body infused).
  4. Studies opting statistical measures only, for analysis of collected data.
  5. Sensors or tracking devices infused inside a person’s body.
  6. Wearable devices that need professional sittings or hospital sittings.
Textbox 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Study Selection

This review’s studies were selected in 2 steps. In the first stage, 2 reviewers (AA and SA) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of all retrieved papers. In the second phase, the same reviewers individually read the whole texts of the papers included in the first step. Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University) [21], a web-based tool developed for data management for systematic and scoping reviews, was used to upload all the articles acquired from databases in a Research Information Systems format; then, filtering and citations were managed. During the first and second steps of the selection process, any disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved through conversation and decisions were made based on consensus.

Data Extraction

AA and SA constructed the data extraction form, as shown in Multimedia Appendix 3. The data extraction technique was carried out independently by 2 reviewers (AA and SA), and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. Microsoft Excel was used to record the data extracted.

Data Synthesis

SA synthesized the extracted data using the narrative approach, aggregating the data using tables and text and nonstatistical techniques. For being more precise, we presented the search results followed by general features of the studies, finally describing characteristics of the WDs and AI technologies. We described the general features of WDs (eg, device placement, type, and operating system [OS]) and their technical features (ie, features of sensors, such as sensors used, sensing approach, and primary measurements). The AI features were addressed based on the models used, the evaluation metrics, and their applications.

Search Results

Having searched 7 bibliographic databases, this study returned 3872 citations. As shown in Figure 1, a total of 294 duplicates were subsequently removed, leaving 3578 unique titles, and abstracts; publications that did not make use of AI technologies via WDs for diabetes management were considered irrelevant. Of these, we further excluded 3424 citations after screening their titles and abstracts. Of the remaining 154 references, 117 publications were excluded during the full-text screening. We were left with 37 studies, and this number remained unchanged even after performing backward and forward reference list checking. The synthesis included a total of 37 articles (Multimedia Appendix 4 [7,8,13,14,22-54]).

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow chart of the study selection process. EC: exclusion criteria; IC: inclusion criteria.
View this figure

General Description of Included Studies

Table 1 highlights the general features of the studies included. Many of the included studies (27/37, 73%) were published between 2019 and 2021, with the remaining 27% (10/37) published between 2016 and 2018. Most of the included studies were published in IEEE (21/37, 57%). A large proportion of the studies were authored by institutes in the United States (7/37, 19%), China (5/37, 14%), and India (5/37, 14%). A total of 26 of the 37 studies (70%) were journal articles, and the remainder were conference proceedings (11/37, 30%). Most of the studies targeted type 1 diabetes (T1D), T2D, or both (21/37, 57%), whereas 32% (12/37) did not specify the type of diabetes and mentioned diabetes in general. The remainder targeted prediabetes or a combination of T1D, T2D, and prediabetes (4/37, 11%). Features of each included study are shown in Multimedia Appendix 5.

Table 1. General features of included studies (n=37).
FeaturesStudies, n (%)Study ID

201910 (27)S4, S8, S10, S16, S18, S20, S21, S24, S29, S30

20209 (24)S3, S7, S11, S13, S15, S17, S19, S22, S35

20218 (22)S5, S9, S12, S14, S25, S27, S28, S33

20186 (16)S1, S6, S23, S34, S36, S37

20173 (8)S2, S26, S32

20161 (3)S31

IEEE21 (57)S1, S3, S5, S9-S11, S13-S18, S20, S24, S26, S28, S29, S31, S32, S36, S37

Elsevier3 (8)S2, S12, S22

MDPI3 (8)S6-S8

ACM2 (5)S21, S35

Other (JMIR, IET, ICST, Confluence, BMJ Publishing Group, SPIE, Telemedicine and e-Health, SAGE)8a (22)S4, S19, S23, S25, S27, S30, S33, S34

United States7 (19)S13, S14, S21, S27, S30, S31, S34

China5 (14)S5, S15, S18, S19, S37

India5 (14)S12, S17, S23, S25, S32

Pakistan2 (5)S3, S20

Switzerland2 (5)S6, S35

Bangladesh2 (5)S10, S24

Other (Korea, Colombia, Canada, Morocco, Mexico, Italy, Macedonia, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Russia, Taiwan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Germany)14b (38)S1, S2, S4, S7, S8, S9, S11, S16, S22, S26, S28, S29, S33, S36
Publication type

Journal articles26 (70)S1-S20, S22, S23, S27, S28, S33, S34

Conference proceedings11 (30)S21, S24-S26, S20-S32, S35-S37
Diabetes type studied

Both T1Dc and T2Dd9 (24)S1, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11, S14, S24, S36

T2D7 (19)S2-S4, S15, S16, S21, S29

T1D5 (14)S13, S22, S30, S34, S35

T1D, T2D, and prediabetes2 (5)S12, S25

T1D and prediabetes1 (3)S17

Prediabetes1 (3)S27

Not specified12 (32)S7, S9, S18, S19, S20, S23, S26, S28, S31, S32, S33, S37

a1 study for each publication.

b1 study for each country.

cT1D: type 1 diabetes.

dT2D: type 2 diabetes.

Study Design Features

Table 2 outlines details about the studies associated with this review. More than half of the studies (21/37, 57%) had the aim of estimation and prediction of glucose (10/37, 27%) or glucose level monitoring (11/37, 30%). A couple of studies had multiple aims, and the remainder aimed to provide diabetes classification (4/37, 11%), diagnostic solutions (5/37, 14%), self-administration and monitoring (4/37, 11%), and prevention (2/37, 5%). Most of the studies did not mention anything about security (31/37, 84%); the remainder did specify security measures taken (6/37, 16%). Participants’ demographics depicted most of them being adult (18/37, 49%) with both genders considered in equal proportional in most of the studies (10/37, 27%). Approximately 41% (15/37) of the studies used diverse populations by separating them into people with diabetes and people without diabetes. Study design features of each included study are shown in Multimedia Appendix 5.

Table 2. Study design features (n=37).
FeaturesStudies, n (%)Study ID
Study aim

Blood glucose estimation (predictions)10 (27)S3, S18, S19, S21, S23, S25, S27, S28, S32, S33, S37

Glucose level monitoring10 (27)S7-S11, S15, S20, S24, S26, S30

Diagnostic solution5 (14)S4, S29, S33, S34, S35

Diabetes classification4 (11)S12-S14, S17

Self-administration and monitoring4 (11)S1, S5, S6, S31

Prevention2 (5)S2, S16

Other disease predictions, detection, and monitoring (hypoglycemia and foot temperature)2 (5)S22, S36
Privacy and security

Not mentioned31 (84)S1-S22, S24-S26, S29, S30, S34-S37

Mentioned6 (16)S23, S27, S28, S31, S32, S33
Data source

Private25 (68)S2, S3, S5, S7, S8-S19, S21, S22, S24, S26, S29, S34-S37

Public4 (11)S1, S4, S6, S25

Not mentioned2 (5)S20, S30
Participant demographics

Age group (years)a

Children and young adults (≤18)1 (3)S8

Adult (19-65)18 (49)S2-S5, S8, S10, S13, S15, S16, S17, S19, S21, S22, S27, S29, S31, S33, S34

Older adult (>65)6 (16)S2, S4, S15, S21, S22, S33

Not mentioned19 (51)S1, S6, S7, S9, S11, S12, S14, S18, S20, S23-S26, S28, S30, S32, S35-S37


Male10 (27)S2, S3, S5, S13, S15, S17, S18, S27, S29, S34

Female10 (27)S2, S3, S5, S13, S15, S17, S18, S27, S29, S34

Not mentioned27 (73)S1, S4, S6-S12, S14, S16, S19-S26, S28, S30-S33, S35-S37


Yes14 (38)S1, S4, S5-S7, S10, S12, S14, S15, S18, S19, S21, S27, S34, S36

No15 (41)S1, S5, S6, S8-S10, S12, S14, S18, S19, S27, S29, S31, S33, S36

Not mentioned17 (46)S2, S3, S11, S13, S16, S17, S20, S22-S26, S29, S30, S32, S35, S37

aNumbers do not add up as participants in some studies belong to more than one age group.

bNumbers do not add up as participants in some studies were diabetic and nondiabetic.

Features of WDs

General Features of Wearables

Table 3 highlights the general features of WDs; some studies used multiple devices. Only 41% (15/37) of the studies used commercially available WDs, whereas 59% (22/37) used prototypes. Most of the studies (22/37, 59%) included wrist-worn devices. In most of the studies, the device type was in the form of a wearable sensor (14/37, 38%), followed by smartwatch (8/37, 22%) and smart wristband (9/37, 24%). Only one study reported a smart sock and another reported smart clothes. Among the developed wearable technologies used, Empatica E4 was the most cited (6/37, 16%), followed by Glutrac (3/37, 8%). For OSs, most of the studies reported devices either directly or indirectly compatible with iPhone OS and Android OS 43% (16/37); OS was not mentioned in a large number of studies (11/37, 28%), and 8% (3/37) mentioned Android only and 5% (2/37) mentioned iPhone OS only. For gateway (ie, a hardware that acts as a “gate” between 2 networks or any device that enables traffic to flow in and out of the network), many of the studies did not mention any sort of gateway (17/37, 46%). Most of the studies that mentioned a gateway used a smartphone (16/37, 43%). Host devices (devices where the actual manipulation of collected data was performed, ie, processing) were used in many of the studies, the most popular being cloud-based (18/37, 49%), many did not report any use of a host device (8/37, 22%), and smart devices were mentioned in 16% (6/37) of studies. For the purpose of transferring data (mode of data transfer) from the WD, the majority of devices reported Bluetooth as the means of transfer (19/37, 51%); 19% (7/37) of studies did not mention the mode of transfer. A total of 16% (6/37) of studies reported the use of some form of internet connection as the mode of transfer (ie, Wi-Fi or mobile network). Features of WDs for each included study are shown in Multimedia Appendix 5.

Table 3. General features of wearable devices (n=37).
FeaturesStudies, n (%)Study ID
Technology status

Prototype22 (59)S1, S3-S5, S8-S11, S16, S17, S20, S23, S24, S26, S28-S33, S36, S37

Commercial15 (41)S2, S6, S7, S12-S15, S18, S19, S21, S22, S25, S27, S34, S35
Device type

Smart clothes1 (3)S1

Smart socks1 (3)S31

Smart watch8 (22)S2, S7, S14, S15, S18, S19, S28, S35

Smart watch and wearable sensor2 (5)S21, S24

Smart wristband9 (24)S4, S6, S12, S13, S25, S27, S30, S33, S34

Smart wristband, smart footwear, and smart neckband2 (5)S23, S32

Wearable sensor14 (38)S3, S5, S8-S11, S16, S17, S20, S22, S26, S36, S37

Body1 (3)S1

Chest1 (3)S11

Finger5 (14)S3, S8, S17, S20, S26

Foot6 (16)S5, S9, S16, S29, S31, S36

Hand1 (3)S10

Wrist18 (49)S4, S6, S7, S12-S15, S18, S19, S24, S25, S27, S28, S30, S33-S35, S37

Wrist and arm1 (3)S21

Wrist or thigh1 (3)S2

Wrist, foot, and neck2 (5)S23, S32

Arm and body1 (3)S22
Device technologya

Actigraph1 (3)S21

Arduino Nano1 (3)S24

Basis Peak1 (3)S34

FreeStyle Libre Flash2 (5)S22, S35

Medtronic Zephyr1 (3)S22

Dexcom G4 Platinum (Professional)1 (3)S21

Empatica E46 (16)S12, S13, S14, S25, S27, S35

Glutrac3 (8)S15, S18, S19

Mi band 21 (3)S6

Raspberry Pi Zero2 (5)S8, S16

Pebble1 (3)S2

Custom2 (5)S26, S28

Not mentioned18 (49)S1, S3-S5, S7, S9-S11, S17, S20, S23, S29-S33, S36, S37
Operating systemb

Android3 (8)S2, S8, S16

iOSc2 (5)S9, S11

Microsoft1 (3)S31

Raspberry Pi OSd1 (3)S24

iOS and Android16 (43)S6, S7, S12-S15, S17-S20, S22, S23, S26, S28, S30, S32

Any desktop OS3 (8)S25, S27, S29

Any smartphone OS1 (3)S29

Not mentioned11 (30)S1, S3-S5, S10, S21, S33-S37

Smartphone16 (43)S1, S6, S7, S11-S15, S17-S20, S23, S28, S30, S32

Database servers (Hbase and Hadoop or Spark)1 (3)S33

Adapter1 (3)S4

Smartphone or PC2 (5)S25, S27

None17 (46)S2, S3, S5, S8-S10, S16, S21, S22, S24, S26, S29, S31, S34-S37
Host device

Cloud (MongoDb, Database server, Google)18 (49)S1, S6, S7, S11-S15, S17-S19, S23, S25, S27, S28, S30, S32, S33

PC (laptop, desktop, or Microsoft Surface)4 (11)S4, S20, S29, S31

Raspberry Pi1 (3)S24

Smart devices (smartphone, tablet, or PC)6 (16)S5, S8, S9, S16, S22, S26

None8 (22)S2, S3, S10, S21, S34-S37
Mode of data transfer

Bluetooth19 (51)S2, S5, S6, S9, S11-S15, S18-S20, S22, S25-S28, S30, S31

Internet (Wi-Fi or cellular or mobile network)6 (16)S1, S7, S8, S16, S17, S33

Internet (Wi-Fi or cellular or mobile network) and Bluetooth2 (5)S23, S32

Wired2 (5)S24, S29

Removable media1 (3)S4

N/Ae7 (19)S3, S10, S21, S34-S37

aNumbers do not add up as some studies used more than one wearable device.

bNumbers do not add up as the WD in one study worked on 2 operating systems.

ciOS: iPhone operating system.

dOS: operating system.

eN/A: not applicable.

Technical Features of Wearables

Table 4 shows an overview of the technical features of the WDs associated with the studies in this review. Devices were often reported as having >1 device measure, and we reported these primary measures along with the measurements used for the respective studies. We observed that many studies reported blood glucose (15/37, 41%) followed by temperature (10/37, 27%), heart rate (9/37, 24%) and galvanic skin response (9/37, 24%) as their top primary device measures. Regarding the second feature shown in Table 4, the majority of the studies reported on blood glucose as the main measurement studied (27/37, 73%), followed by heart rate or variability (4/37, 11%). Most of the studies (28/37, 76%) reported an opportunistic approach (ie, no input required from the participant) when obtaining data using the WDs, whereas the remaining (9/37, 24%) used a participatory approach (ie, input required from the participants). For sensing technologies, various sensors were used, either built-in to the WD or as wearable sensors, often reported as >1 sensor per device. We observed a large number of devices in the studies reviewed reporting photoplethysmography sensor use (12/37, 32%), while optical heart rate was only seen in 5% (2/37) of studies among some of the other less-reported sensors. Features of WDs for each included study are shown in Multimedia Appendix 5.

Table 4. Technical features of wearables (n=37).
FeatureStudies, n (%)Study ID
Primary device measurea

Blood glucose15 (41)S3, S8, S10, S15, S17-S22, S24, S26, S28, S30, S37

Physiological2 (5)S1, S10

Heart rate, heart rate variability, or interbeat interval of the heart9 (24)S6, S11, S14, S22, S23, S32-S35

Galvanic skin response9 (24)S12-S14, S23, S25, S27, S32, S34, S35

Blood volume pulse6 (16)S12-S14, S25, S27, S35

Acceleration6 (16)S12-S14, S25, S27, S35

Plantar pressure5 (14)S5, S9, S23, S29, S32, S33

Temperature (skin, foot, shoe, air, or ambient)10 (27)S12, S13, S16, S23, S25, S27, S32, S34-S36

Step count2 (5)S7, S16

Other (sedentary behaviors, pulse wave information, inertial data, weight, humidity, activity patterns, frequency of food intake and water, and ankle edema quantification)8 (22)S2, S4, S9, S16, S21, S23, S31, S32
Measurement studiedb

Blood glucose27 (73)S1, S3, S6-S8, S10-S28, S30, S33, S37

Plantar pressure3 (8)S5, S9, S29

Heart rate or heart rate variability4 (11)S28, S33, S34, S35

Other (sedentary behavior, pulse wave, edema, general diabetes symptoms, temperature, sleep quality, step counts, and GSR)7 (19)S2, S4, S31, S32, S34-S36
Sensing approach

Opportunistic28 (76)S1, S2, S5, S7, S11-S14, S16-S29, S31-S33, S35-S37

Participatory9 (24)S3, S4, S6, S8-S10, S15, S30, S34
Sensing technologyc

Accelerometer5 (14)S2, S13, S14, S21, S27

Photoplethysmography12 (32)S3, S10, S12-S15, S19, S20, S24, S25, S27, S28

Galvanic skin response8 (22)S10, S13, S14, S23, S24, S27, S32, S34

Near infrared5 (14)S3, S17, S18, S28, S37

Electrocardiography3 (8)S11, S18, S22

Continuous glucose monitoring2 (5)S21, S22

Bluetooth1 (3)S6

Pressure sensors7 (19)S5, S9, S23, S29, S32, S33, S36

Infrared thermopile3 (8)S13, S14, S27

Temperature sensor6 (16)S7, S16, S23, S24, S32, S36

Optical heart rate sensor2 (5)S23, S32

Vibration sensor and flex sensor2 (5)S23, S32

Motion sensor2 (5)S7, S31

Others (physiological sensors, pulse sensor, blood glucose level sensor, Raspberry Pi camera, humidity sensor, step count sensor, weight sensor, stretch sensor, and optical sensor)6 (16)S1, S4, S7, S8, S16, S31

aNumbers do not add up as WDs in many studies were used to measures many biomarkers.

bNumbers do not add up as some studies used more than one measure.

cNumbers do not add up as WDs in most studies used more than one sensor.

Wearables Characteristics With Regard to Diabetes Measurements

Wearable Technology Status Versus WD Type

Multimedia Appendix 6 further visualizes the data highlighting the WD type and whether they are commercial or prototypes. Wearable sensors were the most prominent as a prototype while smartwatches and smart wristbands were the most common as commercial.

Diabetes Types Versus WDs

Figure 2 shows the type of diabetes and number of studies related to each WD type. While most studies did not specify the type, T1D (as a smart wristband), T2D (as a wearable sensor), or both (as a wearable sensor or smartwatch) seem to be the most targeted types.

Figure 2. Diabetes type with regards to wearable device type. PreD: prediabetes; T1D: type 1 diabetes; T2D: type 2 diabetes.
View this figure
AI and ML Technologies

For the purpose of this study, we categorized the ML algorithms into 4 categories (classification models, regression models, neural network–based models, and optimization algorithms) and those that were not clearly specified by the study authors were categorized as black boxes (ie, studies that mention they make use of ML or AI but do not specify any further details of algorithms used). Many ML technologies were reported that come under these headings (refer to Table 5 for a full list), and some studies reported and compared >1 model. Support vector machine (SVM) was the most reported (13/37, 35%), followed by random forest (12/37, 32%), k-nearest neighbor (7/37, 19%), Naive Bayes (5/37, 14%), and decision trees (4/37, 11%) among the most used models from classification models. From the regression models, only linear regression (2/37, 5%) was reported in a couple of studies, whereas all others were reported by single studies only. Artificial neural networks were reported in 14% (5/37) of the studies in neural network–based models, followed by long short-term memory (4/37, 11%), convolutional neural networks (3/37, 8%), and deep neural networks (3/37, 8%); these networks were used for both classification and regression purposes. Table 5 also highlights that the majority of the studies applied the AI and ML technologies for either the purpose of blood glucose level forecasting (12/37, 32%) or classifying the participants as normal, diabetic, or prediabetic (12/37, 32%). Table 6 highlights some of the statistical measures used to evaluate the ML algorithms within the reported studies. Some studies used multiple statistical techniques for this purpose, among them were reports of accuracy (20/37, 54%) and sensitivity (9/37, 24%). While some studies did not mention which was the best ML model identified (6/37, 16%), random forest was reported as the best identified model (7/37, 19%), followed by SVM (6/37, 16%).

Table 5. Artificial intelligence (AI)– and machine learning (ML)–related features (n=37).
FeaturesStudies, n (%)Study ID
AI or ML technologies useda

Classification models

Support vector machine13 (35)S1, S2, S4, S5, S9, S12, S13, S25, S29, S30, S33, S34, S36

Random forest12 (32)S2, S4, S5, S7, S11, S14, S15, S18, S27, S29, S36, S37

K-nearest neighbors7 (19)S5, S9, S12, S13, S25, S29, S31

Naive Bayes5 (14)S2, S7, S13, S31, S36

Decision tree4 (11)S1, S13, S31, S35

Ensemble learning or ensemble—boosted trees2 (5)S1, S13

Logistic regression2 (5)S2, S11

J482 (5)S2, S7

Linear discriminant analysis or linear discriminant2 (5)S4, S13

Gradient boosting decision trees2 (5)S5, S35

AdaBoost classifier1 (3)S5

ZeroR1 (3)S7

OneR1 (3)S7

Simple logistic regression1 (3)S7

Gaussian Process classifier1 (3)S29

C4.51 (3)S33

Linear ridge Classifier1 (3)S14

Extreme gradient boost1 (3)S12

Regression models

Linear regression2 (5)S3, S16

Support vector regression or Fine Gaussian support vector regression1 (3)S3

Random Forest regression1 (3)S15

AdaBoost regression1 (3)S15

Multilayer Polynomial regression1 (3)S17

Ensemble—boosted trees1 (3)S3

Exponential Gaussian process regression1 (3)S20

Neural network–based models

Artificial Neural Network5 (14)S1, S2, S8, S26, S36

Long short-term memory4 (11)S6, S13, S21, S34

Convolutional Neural Network3 (8)S10, S22, S24

Deep neural networks3 (8)S11, S13, S22

Recurrent Neural Network2 (5)S21, S34

Multilayer Perceptron2 (5)S6, S29

Optimization algorithm

Sequential minimal optimization1 (3)S7

L1 norm optimization1 (3)S19

Particle swarm optimization1 (3)S23

MLa black box3 (8)S19, S23, S32
Application of AI technology usedb

Blood glucose level forecasting12S6, S8, S16, S18, S20, S22, S24, S25-28, S34

Blood glucose monitoring411, S30, S32, S37

Classify patients with diabetes (normal, diabetic, and prediabetic)12S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S12, S14, S21, S23, S29, S32, S36

Classify other diseases (patients with hypertension or hypoglycemia)2S33, S35

Evaluation of a developed system3S2, S10, S13

Feature selection2S3, S5

Performance validation3S1, S9, S15

Optimize sensors results3S16, S17, S19

Predictions for step count, shoe removal time, or serum glucose2S16, S17

Edema monitoring1S31

aNumbers do not add up as most studies developed more than one AI algorithms.

bNumbers do not add up as AI algorithms in some studies were used for more than one application.

Table 6. Statistical evaluation of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithm (n=37).
CharacteristicValueStudy ID
Accuracy (%; n=20)

≤80S6, S33

81-90S15, S21, S28, S35, S36

91-95S1, S9, S13, S15, S22, S25, S29

>95S4, S5, S7, S12, S14, S30, S31
Sensitivity (%; n=9)


81-90S4, S6, S25, S33

91-95S9, S22

>95S5, S7
Specificity (%; n=7)


86-90S9, S22

91-95S5, S25

>95S4, S7
Area under the curve (%; n=2)


Clarke Error Grid zone A (%; n=8)


75-80S19, S10

81-90S18, S28

>90S3, S8

Not mentionedS24
Precision (%; n=6)

≤80S6, S33



>95S2, S7
Root mean square error (%; n=4)

<5S19, S21


Others, n (%)

8 (22)S3, S8, S16, S17, S19, S21, S27, S37
Best model identified, n (%)

Artificial Neural Network2 (5)S8, S26

Convolutional Neural Network3 (8)S10, S22, S24

Deep Neural Networks4 (11)S14, S17, S21, S28

Support Vector Machine6 (16)S4, S9, S25, S29, S30, S33

Random Forest7 (19)S2, S5, S15, S18, S27, S36, S37

Long Short-Term Memory1 (3)S13

Decision Trees or Gradient Boosting Decision Trees2 (5)S31, S35

K-Nearest Neighbors1 (3)S31

Multilayer Perceptron1 (3)S6

OneR1 (3)S7

Ensemble1 (3)S1

Support Vector Regression1 (3)S3

Not mentioned6 (16)S11, S19, S20, S23, S32, S34
AI and ML Versus Wearables Versus Diabetes

Figure 3 shows the category of the ML algorithm used according to each WD placement and measurement. Most devices that made use of classification models among the wrist-worn devices were the most prominent. Neural network and regression model were the least used.

Figure 3. Artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) models used with regard to wearable device placement and measurement studied. CM: classification model; NN: neural network; RM: regression model.
View this figure

Principal Findings

This was the first study of its kind to the best of our knowledge, considering the amount of features we were able to extract from each publication. The features extracted should give researchers insight not only into the technologies that are readily available commercially but also into what is possible in the future with studies we identified that developed prototypes. Our findings shed light on this emerging field, which is still in its infancy. This is further highlighted by the fact that 59% (22/37) of the studies that met our inclusion criteria were prototypes; we were only able to identify 41% as commercially available (as demonstrated in Multimedia Appendix 6) devices, of which only (7/15, 46%) studies performed some sort of ML classification on the extracted data directly from WDs, whereas (6/15, 40%) studies made use of neural network–based models with classification to make out of already collected data. Most of these measured blood glucose on wrist-worn devices and used a classification algorithm (Figure 3). Classification models were widely used (Figure 3) in the reviewed studies, largely owing to studies attempting to classify types of diabetes (T1D, T2D, etc). SVM and random forest were the most prevalent classifiers and exhibited the highest performance. SVM [55] is extensively used because of its superiority in generalization and nonlinear function fitting, and it also has a number of advantages when dealing with small-sample studies [56]. Furthermore, SVM is a binary classifier, and we observed that it is mostly used on blood glucose level data to determine levels for diabetes categorization. Aside from the accuracy for demonstrating efficacy, the Clarke Error Grid was the most commonly used performance metric, possibly because of its popularity as a performance metric for assessing blood glucose estimation. The grid was split into 5 zones, each with varied prediction accuracy between the estimated and reference blood glucose readings. The data fell within zone A, which pertains to precise glucose calculations, where each consecutive zone is thought to have progressively substantial erroneous estimations [57,58]. Most of the sensory data being collected especially when looking at commercially available devices, did not require any further or minimal input from the user, meaning the person with diabetes can get on with day-to-day tasks without having to worry about taking regular invasive finger pricks for monitoring glucose levels; for example, while still feeling that they are wearing a stylish item such as a smartwatch. We specifically examined studies after 2015, as previous studies related to the use of WDs found that most wearables were used in this range [59]. One of the reasons may be that Fitbit released its first device in 2009 and the Apple Watch followed in 2015; both these devices set the tone for WDs, and it is not surprising that 59% (22/37) from our review were wrist-worn. A total of 78% (29/37) of the devices were connected to either a gateway or host device, usually a smartphone (16/37, 43%) via either Bluetooth (19/37, 51%) or Wi-Fi or internet (6/37, 16%); this is likely owing to the fact that web-based data are now more affordable and the availability of low energy connectivity technology such as Bluetooth. This ability to connect has resulted in more analytics and data storage being possible on host devices than on smartphones or directly on the cloud (18/37, 49%) of studies in this review, compared with limited computing power on the WD itself. One of the limitations of this is that devices need continuous connections, which can be an issue, as reported data can be lost if the connection is not maintained for long periods [60]. We also observed that many devices used gateways or host devices, which we believe to be largely because of the limited computing power of WDs.


This review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR; therefore, it can be considered a high standard. Two reviewers independently conducted the study selection and data extraction. We believe this to be the first of its kind study focusing on WDs targeting diabetes using AI approaches and were unable to identify previous scoping reviews in the literature that has as an exhaustive list of features extracted in this field. A combination of expert research computer scientists and research medical practitioners allowed us to explore the current technologies in depth and highlight gaps in the research community. The most popular databases in the health care and information technology fields were searched; furthermore, Google Scholar with forward and backward reference list checking allowed an exhaustive search of the literature, reducing the risk of publication bias.


Only studies published between 2015 and 2021 in the English language were included. Furthermore, we did not use Medical Subject Headings terms in our search; therefore, we may have overlooked some relevant studies. We excluded devices that could be classified as WDs, such as electroencephalogram and ECG machines, which limited their use in hospital settings. As our focus was AI, we excluded any study of WDs and diabetes that had a statistical measurement not considered an AI approach. Although we included a large number of features and some effectiveness measures, we fall short of critically assessing the quality of each of the included studies—this goes beyond the scope of our review—and we hope to cover this in a full systematic review in the near future on the same topic.

Practical and Research Implications

WDs hold great potential for the self-monitoring of diabetes-related parameters, and their ability to be paired with a range of smart devices, including smartphones and general connectivity to clouds, allows the continuous collection of data from many biosensors that measure vitals and biosignals without user interference. The fact that they can be worn in a stylish and fashionable manner has potential for wider acceptance than other technologies, such as CGMs. Although many studies have used WDs for diabetes, we found that ML is still lacking in a sizable number of these studies. With the limited number of studies that reported the use of ML, we see great promise, largely owing to the accuracy levels of the ML algorithms reported in Table 6. Engineering and data science research experts need to come together and identify the most common sensors and technologies and study their effectiveness when combined with ML approaches. In addition, commercially available WDs are readily available and therefore sit in waiting for researchers to conduct studies and apply ML and report further in scientific journals to prove validity and instill consumer confidence. Most of the papers identified in this study used AI or ML algorithms for testing the validity of the system functioning rather than identifying the approaches that could be used for the development of such intelligent devices. More work needs to concentrate on applying known ML algorithms for the purpose of making more accurate diabetes-related measurement calculations. Currently, the number of commercial devices associated with studies are still very low, a quick search on retail sites such as Amazon reveals many commercial devices claiming diabetes-related measurements, which have still yet to be validated with related studies, and this is one area where researchers could get involved. Researchers need to make more use of purpose-shifted devices as they are lying in wait as opposed to creating prototypes and testing the effectiveness of the many commercially available devices. We encourage researchers to perform systematic reviews to assess the efficacy of AI-based and non–AI-based WDs compared with traditional medical devices. Some technologies that are classified as WDs such as CGMs are still classified as semi-invasive as they allow the embedding of a sensor partially into participants’ skin, we feel for wider acceptance especially for home use products the technology really needs to move away from such sensors and more studies now need to focus on how measurements can be obtained from noninvasive sensors such as those available on commercial smart watches. Further work is also required on ML algorithms used for diabetes data that can be used on the WDs as opposed to on host devices, as this would reduce some issues reported such as loss of data owing to WD out of range with the host device, which will become easier with time as the technology advances and WD memories are no longer a limitation. We suspect there would be less reliance on host devices for some of the ML computations.

Another area for exploration is the use of the internet of things (IoT); in our search, we found a handful of studies making use of IoT. Most IoT papers describe the IoT architecture for diabetes management without specifying the sensors or WDs actually used or implemented, and do not go into much (if any) detail about any ML deployed. There are many opportunities in this domain; none of the studies were found to make good use of developed commercial technologies such as Alexa, Google Home, and Apple watches, which are readily available. The possibilities here are endless, using a combination of data gathered from sensors at the WDs with other patients and personal data in real-time with IoT. This brings along with its own caveats and the need to incorporate questions of privacy and data sovereignty arising from the mass data storage in cloud-based systems and the many interconnected devices and hospital datacenters; there are issues that need to be considered with the use of data and individual consent. There are also problems regarding the scope of an individual’s consent to use their data, as well as potential accountability if the data are mishandled. There are dangers associated with AI algorithms and their misdiagnoses, dangerous advice, or recommendations that do not correspond to the required standard of care. Data security breaches or the reidentification of previously deidentified data may have unintended repercussions. Furthermore, other ethical issues need to be considered, such as accessibility, although commercial WDs that are easily and cheaply available may not be affordable for the masses in low-income countries. A multidisciplinary effort is required, including but not limited to engineers, medical practitioners, and legal experts.


We investigated and reported the current state of WDs and their features for the purpose of diabetes that use ML approaches. Considering the availability of consumer-grade biosensors, we see great advancement potential in this domain, replacing hospital setting, invasive devices, especially when it comes to monitoring glucose levels. Further clinically significant studies are needed to instill confidence and validate WD use as well as the application of ML algorithms on WD data. Researchers and those wanting to develop AI-based WDs can use our review to understand where the gaps are in this emerging field. We encourage readers to use more data and delve deeper into the studies we have identified in order to establish, validate, and repeat studies that showed high accuracy. There is still much work needed, and we feel our review has provided the most extensive work so far summarizing WDs that use ML for people with diabetes to date. Finally, researchers will also benefit from our study as they can embark on longer and better populated systematic studies scrutinizing the benefits of WDs as data gathering, monitoring, prediction, classification, and recommendation devices in the context of diabetes. We envisage several follow-up studies, starting with a full systematic review from our own group.


The authors would like to thank Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar for making this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.

DOCX File , 84 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Full search terms and strings table.

DOCX File , 14 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Data extraction form.

DOCX File , 17 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Study reference table.

DOCX File , 33 KB

Multimedia Appendix 5

Data extraction sheet.

XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 25 KB

Multimedia Appendix 6

Wearable technologies status with regard to wearable device technologies.

PNG File , 93 KB

  1. Global report on diabetes. World Health Organization.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-02]
  2. Sims EK, Carr AL, Oram RA, DiMeglio LA, Evans-Molina C. 100 years of insulin: celebrating the past, present and future of diabetes therapy. Nat Med 2021 Jul 15;27(7):1154-1164 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Wang L, Li X, Wang Z, Bancks MP, Carnethon MR, Greenland P, et al. Trends in prevalence of diabetes and control of risk factors in diabetes among US adults, 1999-2018. JAMA 2021 Jun 25;326(8):704 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. About diabetes. International Diabetes Federation.   URL: [accessed 2022-07-20]
  5. Alves S, Matos AG, Almeida JS, Benevides CA, Cunha CC, Santiago RV, et al. A new strategy for the detection of diabetic retinopathy using a smartphone app and machine learning methods embedded on cloud computer. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS). 2020 Presented at: 2020 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS); Jul 28-30, 2020; Rochester, MN, USA. [CrossRef]
  6. Chakravadhanula K. A smartphone-based test and predictive models for rapid, non-invasive, and point-of-care monitoring of ocular and cardiovascular complications related to diabetes. Informatics Med Unlocked 2021;24:100485. [CrossRef]
  7. Ramazi R, Perndorfer C, Soriano E, Laurenceau JP, Beheshti R. Multi-modal predictive models of diabetes progression. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics. 2019 Presented at: BCB '19: 10th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Health Informatics; Sep 7 - 10, 2019; Niagara Falls NY USA. [CrossRef]
  8. Prabha A, Yadav J, Rani A, Singh V. Non-invasive diabetes mellitus detection system using machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2021 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence). 2021 Presented at: 2021 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence); Jan 28-29, 2021; Noida, India. [CrossRef]
  9. Calderaro J, Seraphin TP, Luedde T, Simon TG. Artificial intelligence for the prevention and clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2022 Jun;76(6):1348-1361. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Grzybowski A, Brona P, Lim G, Ruamviboonsuk P, Tan GS, Abramoff M, et al. Artificial intelligence for diabetic retinopathy screening: a review. Eye (Lond) 2020 Mar 05;34(3):451-460 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Ellahham S. Artificial intelligence: the future for diabetes care. Am J Med 2020 Aug;133(8):895-900. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Contreras I, Vehi J. Artificial intelligence for diabetes management and decision support: literature review. J Med Internet Res 2018 May 30;20(5):e10775 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Islam M, Manjur SM. Design and implementation of a wearable system for non-invasive glucose level monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Computer and Information Technology for Health (BECITHCON). 2019 Presented at: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Computer and Information Technology for Health (BECITHCON); Nov 28-30, 2019; Dhaka, Bangladesh. [CrossRef]
  14. Lee E, Lee C. Ppg-based smart wearable device with energy-efficient computing for mobile health-care applications. IEEE Sensors J 2021 Jun 15;21(12):13564-13573. [CrossRef]
  15. Xie P, Li Y, Deng B, Du C, Rui S, Deng W, et al. An explainable machine learning model for predicting in-hospital amputation rate of patients with diabetic foot ulcer. Int Wound J 2022 May;19(4):910-918 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Daley BJ, Ni'Man M, Neves MR, Bobby Huda MS, Marsh W, Fenton NE, et al. mHealth apps for gestational diabetes mellitus that provide clinical decision support or artificial intelligence: a scoping review. Diabet Med 2022 Jan 16;39(1):e14735. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Rodriguez-León C, Villalonga C, Munoz-Torres M, Ruiz JR, Banos O. Mobile and wearable technology for the monitoring of diabetes-related parameters: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021 Jun 03;9(6):e25138 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Tan CH, Kyaw BM, Smith H, Tan CS, Tudor Car L. Use of smartphones to detect diabetic retinopathy: scoping review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Med Internet Res 2020 May 15;22(5):e16658 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Fagherazzi G, Ravaud P. Digital diabetes: perspectives for diabetes prevention, management and research. Diabetes Metab 2019 Sep;45(4):322-329. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Tunçalp, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018 Oct 02;169(7):467-473. [CrossRef]
  21. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016 Dec 05;5(1):210 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Chen M, Yang J, Zhou J, Hao Y, Zhang J, Youn C. 5G-smart diabetes: toward personalized diabetes diagnosis with healthcare big data clouds. IEEE Commun Mag 2018 Apr;56(4):16-23. [CrossRef]
  23. Ceron JD, Lopez DM, Ramirez GA. A mobile system for sedentary behaviors classification based on accelerometer and location data. Comput Industry 2017 Nov;92-93:25-31. [CrossRef]
  24. Hina A, Saadeh W. A noninvasive glucose monitoring SoC based on single wavelength photoplethysmography. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 2020 Jun;14(3):504-515. [CrossRef]
  25. Hao Y, Cheng F, Pham M, Rein H, Patel D, Fang Y, et al. A noninvasive, economical, and instant-result method to diagnose and monitor type 2 diabetes using pulse wave: case-control study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Apr 23;7(4):e11959 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Wang D, Ouyang J, Zhou P, Yan J, Shu L, Xu X. A novel low-cost wireless footwear system for monitoring diabetic foot patients. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 2021 Feb;15(1):43-54. [CrossRef]
  27. Alfian G, Syafrudin M, Ijaz M, Syaekhoni M, Fitriyani N, Rhee J. A personalized healthcare monitoring system for diabetic patients by utilizing BLE-based sensors and real-time data processing. Sensors (Basel) 2018 Jul 06;18(7):2183 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Rghioui A, Lloret J, Harane M, Oumnad A. A smart glucose monitoring system for diabetic patient. Electronics 2020 Apr 22;9(4):678. [CrossRef]
  29. Alarcón-Paredes A, Francisco-García V, Guzmán-Guzmán IP, Cantillo-Negrete J, Cuevas-Valencia RE, Alonso-Silverio GA. An IoT-based non-invasive glucose level monitoring system using raspberry Pi. Applied Sci 2019 Jul 28;9(15):3046. [CrossRef]
  30. D'Angelantonio E, Lucangeli L, Camomilla V, Mari F, Mascia G, Pallotti A. Classification-based screening of phlebopathic patients using smart socks. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA). 2021 Presented at: 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA); Jun 23-25, 2021; Lausanne, Switzerland. [CrossRef]
  31. Gusev M, Guseva E, Poposka L. Design of a non-invasive ECG-based glucose measurement system. In: Proceedings of the 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO). 2020 Presented at: 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO); Sep 28 -Oct 02, 2020; Opatija, Croatia. [CrossRef]
  32. Prabha A, Yadav J, Rani A, Singh V. Design of intelligent diabetes mellitus detection system using hybrid feature selection based XGBoost classifier. Comput Biol Med 2021 Sep;136:104664. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Sevil M, Rashid M, Maloney Z, Hajizadeh I, Samadi S, Askari MR, et al. Determining physical activity characteristics from wristband data for use in automated insulin delivery systems. IEEE Sens J 2020 Nov 1;20(21):12859-12870 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Yin H, Mukadam B, Dai X, Jha NK. DiabDeep: pervasive diabetes diagnosis based on wearable medical sensors and efficient neural networks. IEEE Trans Emerg Topics Comput 2021 Jul 1;9(3):1139-1150. [CrossRef]
  35. Tsai C, Li C, Lam RW, Li C, Ho S. Diabetes care in motion: blood glucose estimation using wearable devices. IEEE Consumer Electron Mag 2020 Jan 1;9(1):30-34. [CrossRef]
  36. Kularathne N, Wijayathilaka U, Kottawaththa N, Hewakoralage S, Thelijjagoda S. Dia-Shoe: a smart diabetic shoe to monitor and prevent diabetic foot ulcers. In: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC). 2019 Presented at: 2019 International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC); Dec 05-07, 2019; Malabe, Sri Lanka. [CrossRef]
  37. Joshi AM, Jain P, Mohanty SP, Agrawal N. iGLU 2.0: a new wearable for accurate non-invasive continuous serum glucose measurement in IoMT framework. IEEE Trans Consumer Electron 2020 Nov;66(4):327-335. [CrossRef]
  38. Zhou X, Lei R, Ling B, Li C. Joint empirical mode decomposition and singular spectrum analysis based pre-processing method for wearable non-invasive blood glucose estimation. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 4th International Conference on Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP). 2019 Presented at: 2019 IEEE 4th International Conference on Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP); Jul 19-21, 2019; Wuxi, China. [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou X, Ling BW, Tian Z, Ho Y, Teo K. Joint empirical mode decomposition, exponential function estimation and norm approach for estimating mean value of photoplethysmogram and blood glucose level. IET Signal Process 2020 Dec;14(9):652-665. [CrossRef]
  40. Hina A, Nadeem H, Aslam AR, Saadeh W. Live demonstration: a single LED PPG-based noninvasive glucose monitoring prototype system. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). 2019 Presented at: 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS); May 26-29, 2019; Sapporo, Japan. [CrossRef]
  41. Porumb M, Griffen C, Hattersley J, Pecchia L. Nocturnal low glucose detection in healthy elderly from one-lead ECG using convolutional denoising autoencoders. Biomedical Signal Process Control 2020 Sep;62:102054. [CrossRef]
  42. Non-invasive analytics based smart system for diabetes monitoring. In: Internet of Things (IoT) Technologies for HealthCare. Cham: Springer; 2018.
  43. Mahmud T, Limon MH, Ahmed S, Rafi MZ, Ahamed B, Nitol NN, et al. Non-invasive blood glucose estimation using multi-sensor based portable and wearable system. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). 2019 Presented at: 2019 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC); Oct 17-20, 2019; Seattle, WA, USA. [CrossRef]
  44. Kascheev N, Kozyrev O, Leykin M, Vanyagin A. Non-invasive monitoring of blood glucose by means of wearable tracking technology. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE East-West Design & Test Symposium (EWDTS). 2017 Presented at: 2017 IEEE East-West Design & Test Symposium (EWDTS); Sep 29 -Oct 02, 2017; Novi Sad, Serbia. [CrossRef]
  45. Bent B, Cho PJ, Wittmann A, Thacker C, Muppidi S, Snyder M, et al. Non-invasive wearables for remote monitoring of HbA1c and glucose variability: proof of concept. BMJ Open Diab Res Care 2021 Jun 15;9(1):e002027. [CrossRef]
  46. Corpin R, Guingab HA, Manalo AN, Sampana ML, Abello AN, dela Cruz AR, et al. Prediction of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) using plantar pressure analysis and learning models. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 11th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management ( HNICEM ). 2019 Presented at: 2019 IEEE 11th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and Management ( HNICEM ); Nov 29 - Dec 01, 2019; Laoag, Philippines. [CrossRef]
  47. Smart wristband with integrated chemical sensors for detecting glucose levels using breath volatile organic compounds. Proc SPIE. 2019.   URL: [accessed 2022-07-20]
  48. Fallahzadeh R, Pedram M, Ghasemzadeh H. SmartSock: a wearable platform for context-aware assessment of ankle edema. In: Proceedings of the 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). 2016 Presented at: 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); Aug 16-20, 2016; Orlando, FL, USA. [CrossRef]
  49. Saravanan M, Shubha R, Marks AM, Iyer V. SMEAD: a secured mobile enabled assisting device for diabetics monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS). 2017 Presented at: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS); Dec 17-20, 2017; Bhubaneswar, India. [CrossRef]
  50. Qaffas AA, Hoque R, Almazmomi N. The internet of things and big data analytics for chronic disease monitoring in Saudi Arabia. Telemedicine e-Health 2021 Jan 01;27(1):74-81. [CrossRef]
  51. Maritsch M. Towards wearable-based hypoglycemia detection and warning in diabetes. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2020 Presented at: CHI '20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Apr 25 - 30, 2020; Honolulu HI USA. [CrossRef]
  52. Ravindran R, Niemann U, Klose S, Walter I, Ming A, Mertens PR, et al. Transformation of temperature timeseries into features that characterize patients with diabetic autonomic nerve disorder. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS). 2018 Presented at: 2018 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS); Jun 18-21, 2018; Karlstad, Sweden. [CrossRef]
  53. Li Z, Ye Q, Guo Y, Tian Z, Ling B, Lam R. Wearable non-invasive blood glucose estimation via empirical mode decomposition based hierarchical multiresolution analysis and random forest. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP). 2018 Presented at: 2018 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP); Nov 19-21, 2018; Shanghai, China. [CrossRef]
  54. Schwartz FL, Marling CR, Bunescu RC. The promise and perils of wearable physiological sensors for diabetes management. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018 May;12(3):587-591 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Vapnik V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer; 1995.
  56. Liu W, Wang J, Zhang C. Study of bioelectrical impedance analysis methods for visceral fat estimation using SVM. J Electron Measure Instrument 2011 Jul 20;25(7):648-653. [CrossRef]
  57. Comparison of noninvasive blood glucose estimation using various regression models. In: Advances in Signal Processing and Intelligent Recognition Systems. Singapore: Springer; 2020.
  58. Clarke W, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick LA, Carter W, Pohl SL. Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987;10(5):622-628. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Loncar-Turukalo T, Zdravevski E, Machado da Silva J, Chouvarda I, Trajkovik V. Literature on wearable technology for connected health: scoping review of research trends, advances, and barriers. J Med Internet Res 2019 Sep 05;21(9):e14017 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Schwartz FL, Marling CR, Bunescu RC. The promise and perils of wearable physiological sensors for diabetes management. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018 May 15;12(3):587-591 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

AI: artificial intelligence
CGM: continuous glucose monitoring
ECG: electrocardiogram
IoT: internet of things
ML: machine learning
OS: operating system
PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews
SVM: support vector machine
T1D: type 1 diabetes
T2D: type 2 diabetes
WD: wearable device

Edited by T Leung; submitted 27.12.21; peer-reviewed by P Bhadra, J Sanders, G Al-Hussain, M Kraus; comments to author 23.05.22; revised version received 31.05.22; accepted 20.06.22; published 09.08.22


©Arfan Ahmed, Sarah Aziz, Alaa Abd-alrazaq, Faisal Farooq, Javaid Sheikh. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (, 09.08.2022.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.