Type 1 diabetes is not (known to be) preventable, and Type 2 diabetes must be inordinately rare in infants; if there's ever been a case at all.
Perhaps we're still a little while off receiving electronic notifications telling us we need to change our child's diaper.
> Moreover, to measure urine sugar levels in elderly or long-term care patients, sensors can be embedded directly into their diapers.
The paper itself explicitly states that it is for long-term care -- from its abstract:
> A self-driven sensor that can detect urine and urine sugar and can be mounted on diapers is desirable to reduce the burden of long-term care.
Modern diapers are remarkably complex. The super-absorbent polymer inside is really quite ingenious; and it's my understanding that brands have proprietary chemistry going on inside to prevent urea breaking down into ammonia and producing a smell, and damaging the patient's skin.
I sustained an injury to my spinal cord earlier this year, and all of this became much more personal – I have to say, compared to a urinary catheter (a device that can only be described as 'evil and tortuous') diapers are positively idyllic...
Type 1 is not preventable, but detecting it is important as it could arise in infants (half of cases). Consequences are kind of hard if ignored / not detected. Then proper glucose monitoring can be set.
And more generally, detecting glucose level from urine is a bit late for any kind of diabetes. So pretty useless for Type 2 monitoring I think.
Just that the paper/research in question has been conducted with adults in mind. Perhaps infants don't produce enough urine, I'm not sure.
Meant to inquire about this with my other response. Do you have a source for this?
My daughter was diagnosed at 2 (almost 3) and doctors gave the impression this is younger than average. We're also in many Facebook T1D parent support groups. There are certainly some diagnosed under 2, but it seems to be quite rare (1% maybe).
That's all anecdotal though. I'm genuinely curious about formal stats.