Home › Research › Prevention and risk
An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program
Nestoras Nicolas Mathioudakis, Nestoras Nicolas Mathioudakis, Benjamin Lalani, Mohammed S. Abusamaan, Mary Ellen Alderfer, Defne Alver, Adrian Dobs, Brian Kane et al.. JAMA, 2025-10-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). After referral, 171 of 183 participants (93.4%) initiated the AI-led DPP and 153 of 185 (82.7%) initiated the human-led DPP. The primary outcome was achieved by 58 of 183 participants (31.7%) in the AI-led DPP group and 59 of 185 (31.9%) in the human-led DPP group (risk difference, -0.2% [1-sided 95% CI, -8.2%]), meeting the criterion for noninferiority. Findings were consistent across individual components of the composite end point and in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with prediabetes and overweight or obesity, referral to a fully automated AI-led DPP was noninferior to referral to a human-led DPP in achieving a composite outcome based on weight reduction, physical activity, and HbA1c. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05056376.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mathioudakis, N. N., Lalani, B., Abusamaan, M. S., Alderfer, M. E., Alver, D., Dobs, A., et al. (2025). An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.19563
Vancouver
Mathioudakis NN, Lalani B, Abusamaan MS, Alderfer ME, Alver D, Dobs A, et al. An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program. JAMA. 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.19563. PMID: 41144242.
BibTeX
@article{mathioudakis2025-41144242,
author = {Mathioudakis, Nestoras Nicolas and Lalani, Benjamin and Abusamaan, Mohammed S. and Alderfer, Mary Ellen and Alver, Defne and Dobs, Adrian and Kane, Brian and others},
title = {{An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program}},
journal = {JAMA},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1001/jama.2025.19563},
pmid = {41144242},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.19563}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]).
- After referral, 171 of 183 participants (93.4%) initiated the AI-led DPP and 153 of 185 (82.7%) initiated the human-led DPP.
- The primary outcome was achieved by 58 of 183 participants (31.7%) in the AI-led DPP group and 59 of 185 (31.9%) in the human-led DPP group (risk difference, -0.2% [1-sided 95% CI, -8.2%]), meeting the criterion for noninferiority.
- Findings were consistent across individual components of the composite end point and in sensitivity analyses.
- Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with prediabetes and overweight or obesity, referral to a fully automated AI-led DPP was noninferior to referral to a human-led DPP in achieving a composite outcome based on weight reduction, physical activity, and HbA1c.
Why it matters
This trial compared an AI-led Diabetes Prevention Program with human coaching in adults with prediabetes and overweight or obesity, and the AI-led program was noninferior for a composite outcome based on weight reduction, physical activity and HbA1c. It does not address Alzheimer's disease treatment, cure or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Participants368
- Effect size6.5%; 93.4%; 82.7%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA) |
| Journal's citation record | 4 / 4 | JAMA: journal h-index 1,011 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 368 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 40 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 13.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 48.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 40 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Sara E. Benjamin‐Neelon: h-index 29 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Johns Hopkins University: institution h-index 2,306 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41144242) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also in Prevention and risk
265 studies in the library are filed under Prevention and risk with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention and risk hub.