DocG DocG | AI-Powered Clinical Summaries

Stay Current with Medical Literature

AI-powered clinical summaries delivered to your inbox 3x per week. Evidence-based insights in 250 words, designed for busy physicians.

Get Started Free

See What You Get

Free members receive email summaries. Premium members get web access plus AI-powered article rankings.

Email Summary Example

Free Tier
Free tier: Summaries delivered to your inbox only. Upgrade to view on web, search the archive, and customize email frequency.
Automated app coaching matched human diabetes prevention
Referring adults with prediabetes to a fully automated, app-based lifestyle program achieved similar 12-month health targets as referral to human coaching.
*Pragmatic noninferiority randomized clinical trial; Level 1b (OCEBM).

Citation

Mathioudakis N, Lalani B, Abusamaan MS, et al; AI-DPP Study Group. An artificial intelligence–powered lifestyle intervention vs human coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2025;334(23):2079-2089. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.19563

Background

Prediabetes is common, but structured lifestyle programs are underused because of limited capacity and participation barriers. This trial tested whether an automated, app-based program could perform at least as well as standard remote human coaching.

Patients

368 adults (median age 58 years) with prediabetes and overweight or obesity at 2 US sites.

Intervention

Referral to a fully automated, app-based Diabetes Prevention Program with a Bluetooth scale.

Control

Referral to a remote, group-based, human coach–led Diabetes Prevention Program.

Outcome

(Primary) Composite at 12 months: maintained hemoglobin A1c below 6.5% throughout study and met ≥1 of: ≥5% weight loss; or ≥4% weight loss plus ≥150 weekly minutes of physical activity (measured by wearable); or hemoglobin A1c drop ≥0.2%.

Follow-up Period

12 months

Results

Primary analysis was intention-to-treat; participants missing 12-month data were counted as not meeting the outcome.
Outcome Automated app referral Human-coach referral Difference
Primary composite outcome (primary) 31.7% (58/183) 31.9% (59/185) −0.2%; noninferior (margin −15%)
Program initiation 93.4% 82.7% +10.7%; NNT 10
Program completion 63.9% 50.3% +13.6%; NNT 8

Limitations

Unblinded; used short-term targets rather than diabetes onset. Human coaching was remote (not in-person). Two sites with motivated participants may limit generalizability.

Funding

National Institutes of Health grants; intervention vendors paid; no funder role.

Clinical Application

When access to human coaching is limited, clinicians can refer eligible patients to a fully automated app-based program and expect similar 12-month results.

Top Journal Rankings - February 2026

Premium
99 abstracts scored across 7 criteria. Click any article to expand criterion scores.
No rankings available yet. Check back soon!
Score Guide: 9-10 Exceptional 7-8 Strong 5-6 Moderate 3-4 Weak 1-2 Poor
Showing top 10 of 99

How It Works

1

Sign Up with Google

Create your free account in seconds using your Google account. No passwords to remember.

2

Receive Email Summaries

Get AI-curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox three times per week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

3

Upgrade for Web Access

Want to search the archive, access summaries on the web, or customize your topics? Upgrade to Premium.

Ready to Stay Current?

Get Started Free