---
格式版本: 2
标题: "FairGlucose: A CGM Fairness Benchmark Reveals Subgroup Disparities Hidden in Population-Level Validation"
原文链接: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18296"
发布日期: "2026-08-18"
发布时间校准状态: "found"
发布时间需复核: "否"
发布时间来源: "rule:local:strict_original_body"
发布时间证据: "**\\[v1\\]** Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:20:07 UTC (1,097 KB)"
发布时间校准原因: "规则确认唯一严格发布时间，来源 local:strict_original_body"
发布时间校准置信度: "high"
发布时间候选数量: 18
发布时间严格候选数量: 6
发布时间原页读取状态: "source template page reused from URL open"
发布时间未找到原因: ""
发布时间校准时间: "2026-08-20T14:42:35+08:00"
发布时间仲裁状态: "skipped"
发布时间仲裁尝试次数: 0
发布时间仲裁耗时毫秒: 0
发现时间: "2026-08-20T14:38:42+08:00"
入库时间: "2026-08-20T06:42:35.945Z"
来源平台: "arXiv 学术论文搜索"
搜索渠道: "source_template"
搜索词: "https://arxiv.org/search/?query=Oracle&searchtype=all"
匹配关键词:
  - "deployment"
  - "performance"
  - "AI"
相关厂家:
  - "Oracle"
相关专家:
  []
内容类型: "网页"
抓取工具: "Free Fetch + Defuddle"
清洗工具: "Defuddle Markdown + Defuddle/Readability 正文提取"
原始附件:
  []
AI优质: "否"
AI打分: 5
AI分档: "非优质"
AI质检状态: "不通过"
AI打分理由: "论文主题为连续血糖监测公平性基准，与超节点、AI Rack、机柜级AI基础设施完全无关，属于明显无关内容。"
AI质检模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI质检时间: "2026-08-20T14:43:50+08:00"
AI主题相关性: 0
AI来源权威性: 5
AI新颖性: 0
AI技术细节: 0
AI商业部署信号: 0
AI完整性: 5
AI摘要: "研究构建了FairGlucose，一个覆盖300名患者、12个人口分层和33种模型的CGM预测公平性基准；"
AI摘要模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI摘要时间: "2026-09-07T03:21:14.956Z"
采集批次: "2026年8月20日14点19分32秒"
采集批次ID: "20260820-141932-079"
去重键: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18296"
---

## Computer Science > Computers and Society

## Title:FairGlucose: A CGM Fairness Benchmark Reveals Subgroup Disparities Hidden in Population-Level Validation

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.18296) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.18296v1)

> Abstract:As CGM-based AI tools approach clinical deployment, whether their accuracy is equitable across patient demographics remains insufficiently tested. To enable this evaluation, we constructed FairGlucose, a 300-patient CGM cohort balanced across 12 demographic strata (age x gender x type 1/type 2 diabetes), with 132,480 forecasting samples and 3,945 unique behavioral events (meals, exercise, medication) logged by 81 patients. Benchmarking 33 models across four families on 2-hour glucose forecasting, we find that population-level external validation can conceal substantial subgroup disparities. Aggregate out-of-distribution metrics appear stable (approximately 1.0), yet subgroup-level ratios range from 0.8 to 1.4, with T1D patients showing 6 mg/dL higher prediction error than T2D (p < 0.001). This disparity persists across all 33 models, suggesting a property of the prediction task rather than any single architecture. Further analysis shows that subgroup performance gaps align with the proportion of clinically hard cases, and that input-length sensitivity varies across demographics, motivating personalized configurations. Frontier LLMs underperform specialized neural models by 1-6 mg/dL; behavioral events contribute negligibly (approximately 0.1 mg/dL) even under oracle event access. These findings establish that population-level validation alone is insufficient for equity assessment of digital health AI, motivating subgroup-disaggregated reporting as a default standard.

| Subjects: | Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| --- | --- |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2608.18296](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18296) \[cs.CY\] |
|  | (or [arXiv:2608.18296v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18296v1) \[cs.CY\] for this version) |
|  | [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18296](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18296) |

## Submission history

From: Junjie Luo \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/a358ee7d/2608.18296)\]  
**\[v1\]** Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:20:07 UTC (1,097 KB)

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2608.18296) | Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))