--- language: - en license: mit size_categories: - n<1K task_categories: - time-series-forecasting - tabular-classification - feature-extraction task_ids: - tabular-multi-class-classification pretty_name: CGM-JEPA Downstream Evaluation Splits modalities: - Time Series - Tabular tags: - continuous-glucose-monitor - cgm - insulin-resistance - beta-cell-dysfunction - metabolic-subphenotype - ogtt - healthcare - time-series - subject-level-classification configs: - config_name: default data_files: - split: train path: train.parquet - split: validation path: validation.parquet --- # CGM-JEPA Downstream Evaluation Splits [Paper](https://huggingface.co/papers/2605.00933) | [Code](https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA) Labeled cohort splits used to evaluate CGM encoders on two binary metabolic outcomes — **insulin resistance** and **β-cell dysfunction** — in the paper [CGM-JEPA: Learning Consistent Continuous Glucose Monitor Representations via Predictive Self-Supervised Pretraining](https://huggingface.co/papers/2605.00933). > Downstream-only. For the unlabeled pretraining corpus (Stanford + Colas), see [`CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA-Pretraining`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA-Pretraining). For pretrained encoder weights, see [`CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA`](https://huggingface.co/CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA). ## Quick start ### Option 1 — `datasets` library (recommended for analysis / fine-tuning) ```python from datasets import load_dataset ds = load_dataset("CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA-Downstream") # DatasetDict({ # train: Dataset({features: ['subject', 'ctru_venous', 'ctru_cgm', ..., # 'ir_class', 'ir_regression', # 'beta_class', 'beta_regression'], # num_rows: 27}), # validation: Dataset({..., num_rows: 17}) # }) ``` The two splits share a canonical 11-column schema (subject + 6 modality `Sequence(Value('float64'))` + 4 label fields). Modalities the train cohort doesn't have are `None` rather than empty — only `ctru_venous` is populated in the train split. ### Option 2 — original nested JSON (used by the code repo's eval pipeline) ```bash huggingface-cli download CRUISEResearchGroup/CGM-JEPA-Downstream \ --repo-type dataset --local-dir Dataset_Open ``` Then from the [code repository](https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA): ```bash # Reproduce all 3 evaluation regimes × 2 endpoints (Tables 1–6) python scripts/run_all_eval.py ``` ## Files | File | Subjects | Size | Role | |---|---|---|---| | `train.parquet` | 27 | ~30 KB | **Initial cohort** in `datasets`-friendly tabular form (one row per subject). | | `validation.parquet` | 17 | ~110 KB | **Validation cohort** in `datasets`-friendly tabular form. | | `train_split.json` | 27 | ~45 KB | Same data as `train.parquet`, in the nested JSON layout the code repo's `data_loaders/` expects. | | `validation_split.json` | 17 | ~146 KB | Same data as `validation.parquet`, nested JSON layout. | The two cohorts are **subject-disjoint by construction**: subjects appearing in both upstream groups were removed from the validation cohort during preprocessing. ## Schema Both files use the same nested-JSON structure: ```jsonc { "S01": { // subject identifier "x": { "ctru_venous": [, …], // sequence of glucose values (mg/dL) "ctru_cgm": [, …], // (validation cohort only) "home_cgm_1": [, …], // " "home_cgm_2": [, …], // " "cgm_home_mean":[, …], // mean of home_cgm_1 & home_cgm_2 "cgm_all_mean": [, …] // mean of ctru_cgm, home_cgm_1, home_cgm_2 }, "y": { "ir": {"class": 0|1, "regression": }, // SSPG-derived "beta": {"class": 0|1, "regression": } // DI-derived } }, "S02": { ... }, ... } ``` ### Extract methods (`x` sub-keys) | Key | Availability | Description | |---|---|---| | `ctru_venous` | train + validation | In-clinic venous OGTT glucose trajectory | | `ctru_cgm` | validation only | In-clinic CGM trajectory recorded during the same OGTT | | `home_cgm_1` | validation only | First free-living home-CGM window | | `home_cgm_2` | validation only | Second free-living home-CGM window | | `cgm_home_mean` | validation only | Subject-level mean of `home_cgm_1` and `home_cgm_2` | | `cgm_all_mean` | validation only | Subject-level mean of all three CGM modalities | The initial cohort was defined to have OGTT venous data only (no matching CGM), so `train_split.json` contains a single `ctru_venous` field per subject. ### Labels (`y` sub-keys) | Field | Type | Source | Threshold | |---|---|---|---| | `ir.class` | binary {0, 1} | SSPG (Steady-State Plasma Glucose) | 1 = insulin-resistant, 0 = insulin-sensitive | | `ir.regression` | float | SSPG numeric value | mg/dL | | `beta.class` | binary {0, 1} | DI (Disposition Index) | 1 = β-cell dysfunction, 0 = normal β-cell function | | `beta.regression` | float | DI numeric value | dimensionless | A class value of `-1` indicates a missing or unannotated label. Threshold definitions follow Metwally et al. (2025). ### Class distribution | Cohort | n | IR=1 (resistant) | IR=0 (sensitive) | β=1 (dysfunction) | β=0 (normal) | |---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:| | Initial (train_split) | 27 | 14 | 13 | 16 | 11 | | Validation (validation_split) | 17 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 11 | Both labels are reasonably balanced; the paper reports stratified 2-fold cross-validation over 20 random iterations (40 paired evaluations per cell). ## Evaluation regimes (paper Tables 1–6) The two splits support all three deployment regimes evaluated in the paper: | Regime | Train on | Test on | |---|---|---| | Cohort generalization (venous) | `train_split` × `ctru_venous` | `validation_split` × `ctru_venous` | | Venous → home-CGM transfer | `validation_split` × `ctru_venous` | `validation_split` × `cgm_home_mean` | | In-domain home CGM | `validation_split` × `cgm_home_mean` | `validation_split` × `cgm_home_mean` | All regimes are orchestrated by [`scripts/run_all_eval.py`](https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA/blob/main/scripts/run_all_eval.py). ## How this corpus was built The splits were assembled by [`scripts/preprocess_dataset.py`](https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA/blob/main/scripts/preprocess_dataset.py) in the code repository, from a single upstream source: - **Stanford CGM Study** (Metwally et al. 2025, *Nature Biomedical Engineering*) — data distributed through the [`Metabolic_Subphenotype_Predictor`](https://github.com/aametwally/Metabolic_Subphenotype_Predictor) repository under the MIT license. Cohort assignment is based on the `exp_type` column in `filtered_metabolic_tests.csv`: - Subjects with `exp_type = venous_without_matching_cgm_and_without_planned_athome_cgm` → **initial cohort**. - Subjects with `exp_type = venous_with_matching_cgm_and_with_planned_athome_cgm` → **validation cohort**. - Subjects appearing in both groups are removed from the validation cohort to keep them subject-disjoint. All glucose trajectories were smoothed onto a 5-min grid via cubic smoothing splines (`scipy.interpolate.make_smoothing_spline(lam=0.35)`); sensor `"Low"`/`"High"` strings were replaced with the empirical numeric min/max. ## Intended use - Linear-probe / fine-tuning evaluation of CGM encoders on metabolic-subphenotype prediction. - Cross-cohort generalization and cross-modality transfer experiments. - Method comparison on a small but clinically labeled CGM corpus. ## License & attribution Released under the **MIT license**, inherited from the upstream [`Metabolic_Subphenotype_Predictor`](https://github.com/aametwally/Metabolic_Subphenotype_Predictor) repository (Metwally et al. 2025, *Nature Biomedical Engineering*). Please cite both the original Stanford study and our CGM-JEPA paper when using these splits. ## Citation ```bibtex @article{muhammad2026cgm, title = {CGM-JEPA: Learning Consistent Continuous Glucose Monitor Representations via Predictive Self-Supervised Pretraining}, author = {Muhammad, Hada Melino and Li, Zechen and Salim, Flora and Metwally, Ahmed A}, journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00933}, year = {2026} } ``` ## Code repository [https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA](https://github.com/cruiseresearchgroup/CGM-JEPA)