Methodology

How type1.science ranks, scores and cites.

type1.science is a living index of the research and tools for type 1 diabetes, organized around four pillars — Cure, Living, Preventing and Trials — and two destinations: a true artificial pancreas and a cure. Nothing here is ranked by opinion. Every item is scored against published, category-specific criteria you can inspect and re-weight. This page explains exactly how.

01 / Scoring

A transparent 0–100 score

Within each category, every option is scored 0–100 on a fixed set of published criteria — for CGMs that includes accuracy, lag, interoperability and access; for cures it includes insulin independence, durability and immunosuppression burden. Each criterion is rated on its own evidence, and the overall score is a weighted average of those ratings.

overall = Σ ( weight × criterion ) ÷ Σ weight

A higher score means stronger, better-evidenced performance toward that pillar’s goal — not a recommendation. Scores are only ever compared withina category, never across them: an insulin’s 78 and a cure’s 78 are not the same thing.

02 / Weighting

You decide what counts

There is no single “best.” The cheapest sensor, the most accurate one and the one you can actually get this month are rarely the same product, so the ranking is yours to shape.

Every ranking ships with a sensible, evidence-weighted default. On any page you can open Weight the criteria and set how much each one matters — Skip, Some, A lot, or Top — and the list re-sorts live. Your weighting is remembered on your device.

03 / Evidence

Evidence levels

Every item and score carries an evidence level, so you can see how solid the ground is beneath it.

Regulator-approvedCleared or approved by a regulator (FDA, EMA or equivalent) for this use.

StrongMultiple randomized trials, or a pivotal trial, with consistent results.

ModerateAt least one controlled trial; results are promising but limited or mixed.

EarlyFirst-in-human, small, or single-arm data — preliminary and unconfirmed.

Preclinical / conceptualAnimal or lab data only, or a proposal for something that should be built.

04 / Stage

Development stage

Each therapy also shows where it sits in the pipeline, drawn as a five-step bar from preclinical to approved:

e.g. Phase 3

Preclinical → Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 → Approved

Alongside it, a plain-language status tells you what that means for access today:

Available nowApproved and obtainable, though access may be limited by cost or eligibility.

In trialsBeing tested in people; not yet available outside a study.

ResearchPreclinical or very early; years from any clinical use.

DiscontinuedDevelopment stopped — kept for the lesson it teaches.

05 / Personalization

Personalized, on your device

Set up one profile — age, region, disease stage, devices, and what you value most — and the whole site narrows and re-ranks around it.

That profile stays on your device. There is no account, and nothing is sent to a server. You can edit or clear it at any time, and age is just one field, never a gate.

06 / Sourcing

Sourced, dated and honest

Every item and trial is tied to primary sources — trial registries, regulator documents and peer-reviewed publications — and carries a review date so you can see how current it is.

Where evidence is early, contested or thin, we say so rather than rounding it up. As data changes, scores change with it: this is a living index, not a fixed verdict.

07 / Advocacy

What we should build

A few entries are not products but proposals — clearly marked — describing something that does not yet exist but should, such as a CGM that also senses ketones.

These are scored against the same criteria as a target, to make the case for a gap worth filling. They are never mistaken for available options.

Not medical advice

type1.science is science journalism, not medical advice. It is built to help you ask better questions and understand the landscape — treatment decisions belong with you and your care team.