Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Endocrinol.

Sec. Clinical Diabetes

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1536292

This article is part of the Research TopicTechnologies for Diabetes, volume IIIView all 3 articles

Clinical Performance Evaluation of the SiJoy GS1 Continuous Glucose Monitor during Oral Glucose Tolerance Testing in Healthy Adults

Provisionally accepted
Wanyi  ZhaoWanyi Zhao1Dongmei  ZhengDongmei Zheng2Xianbao  ShiXianbao Shi3Feng  XuFeng Xu2Lin  ChenLin Chen2Xingmei  LiuXingmei Liu2Jin  XiaolongJin Xiaolong2Qingbo  GuanQingbo Guan2Chao  XuChao Xu2*
  • 1Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
  • 2Shandong Provincial Hospital, Jinan, China
  • 3Shenzhen Sibionics Co.Ltd., Shenzhen, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the performance of the SiJoy GS1 Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) system by analyzing the time lag between plasma glucose (PG) and CGM measurements during an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) in healthy adults. This investigation would elucidate the implications of physiological delay time and optimize technical delays in populations.Research design and methodsA total of 129 participants wore SiJoy GS1 sensors on their posterior upper arms for at least 48 hours before undergoing an OGTT.ResultsTo minimize the Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD), two approaches were tested: MARD minimization and minimum deviation match. The demographic characteristics of the participants included a mean age of 37.62 (±11.21) years, height of 169.84 (±7.81) cm, and weight of 71.86 (±18.0) kg. Among them 69.0% were healthy. SiJoy GS1 sensors exhibit an excellent performance of consistency with 96.6% at 20/20% and MARD of 8.01(±4.9) % at the fasting phase. The consensus error grid results showed 89.22% of all values fell within Zone A, and 100% of values were in Zone A+B collectively. In terms of minimizing Mean Absolute Relative Difference (MARD), at 30 minutes of OGTT, the first method suggested a 15-minute delay while the second proposed a 10-minute average delay time. The latter approach was more suitable due to the less variability in the timing of glucose peaks during the OGTT.ConclusionsIn the study, the SiJoy GS1 sensor exhibited consistent performance. Its accuracy was unaffected by subject characteristics. The application of the minimum deviation match method proved advantageous in reducing the CGM delay time.

Keywords: continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), Plasma glucose, accuracy, glucose control, Analytical bias

Received: 28 Nov 2024; Accepted: 06 Jun 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zhao, Zheng, Shi, Xu, Chen, Liu, Xiaolong, Guan and Xu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Chao Xu, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Jinan, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.