Blinded Multi-Rater Comparative Evaluation of a Large Language Model and Clinician-Authored Responses in CGM-Informed Diabetes Counseling

TL;DR

This study evaluates a retrieval-grounded large language model as a supportive tool for diabetes counseling based on CGM data, showing it can generate empathetic, actionable responses with higher perceived quality than clinicians in a blinded assessment.

Contribution

It introduces a retrieval-grounded LLM-based conversational agent for CGM interpretation and demonstrates its potential as an adjunct in diabetes counseling with superior quality ratings.

Findings

The LLM system received higher quality scores than clinicians.

Safety concerns were rare and comparable between responses.

The system showed promise for patient education and preconsultation support.

Abstract

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.