{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020903573836817263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008091706001348618, 'mean_word_length': 5.807339449541284, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Standardization versus customization of glucose reporting.

Bergenstal et al. (Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:198-211) described an important approach toward standardization of reporting and analysis of continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data. The ambulatory glucose profile (AGP), a composite display of glucose by time of day that superimposes data from multiple days, is perhaps the most informative and useful of the many graphical approaches to display glucose data. However, the AGP has limitations; some variations are desirable and useful. Synchronization with respect to meals, traditionally used in glucose profiles for SMBG data, can improve characterization of postprandial glucose excursions. Several other types of graphical display are available, and recently developed ones can augment the information provided by the AGP. There is a need to standardize the parameters describing glycemic variability and cross-validate the available computer programs that calculate glycemic variability. Clinical decision support software can identify and prioritize clinical problems, make recommendations for modifications of therapy, and explain its justification for those recommendations. The goal of standardization is challenging in view of the diversity of clinical situations and of computing and display platforms and software. Standardization is desirable but must be done in a manner that permits flexibility and fosters innovation.