Erik A Otto1, Vinay Tannan2. 1. InSpark Technologies, Inc, Charlottesville, VA, USA eotto@insparktech.com. 2. Taan Consulting LLC, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of systems allowing automated, real-time transmission of blood glucose data there is a need for pattern recognition techniques that can inform of deleterious patterns in glycemic control when people test. We evaluated the utility of pattern identification with a novel pattern identification system named Vigilant™ and compared it to standard pattern identification methods in diabetes. METHOD: To characterize the importance of an identified pattern we evaluated the relative risk of future hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events in diurnal periods following identification of a pattern in a data set of 536 patients with diabetes. We evaluated events 2 days, 7 days, 30 days, and 61-90 days from pattern identification, across diabetes types and cohorts of glycemic control, and also compared the system to 6 pattern identification methods consisting of deleterious event counts and percentages over 5-, 14-, and 30-day windows. RESULTS: Episodes of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and severe hyperglycemia were 120%, 46%, 123%, and 76% more likely after pattern identification, respectively, compared to periods when no pattern was identified. The system was also significantly more predictive of deleterious events than other pattern identification methods evaluated, and was persistently predictive up to 3 months after pattern identification. CONCLUSIONS: The system identified patterns that are significantly predictive of deleterious glycemic events, and more so relative to many pattern identification methods used in diabetes management today. Further study will inform how improved pattern identification can lead to improved glycemic control.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of systems allowing automated, real-time transmission of blood glucose data there is a need for pattern recognition techniques that can inform of deleterious patterns in glycemic control when people test. We evaluated the utility of pattern identification with a novel pattern identification system named Vigilant™ and compared it to standard pattern identification methods in diabetes. METHOD: To characterize the importance of an identified pattern we evaluated the relative risk of future hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events in diurnal periods following identification of a pattern in a data set of 536 patients with diabetes. We evaluated events 2 days, 7 days, 30 days, and 61-90 days from pattern identification, across diabetes types and cohorts of glycemic control, and also compared the system to 6 pattern identification methods consisting of deleterious event counts and percentages over 5-, 14-, and 30-day windows. RESULTS: Episodes of hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and severe hyperglycemia were 120%, 46%, 123%, and 76% more likely after pattern identification, respectively, compared to periods when no pattern was identified. The system was also significantly more predictive of deleterious events than other pattern identification methods evaluated, and was persistently predictive up to 3 months after pattern identification. CONCLUSIONS: The system identified patterns that are significantly predictive of deleterious glycemic events, and more so relative to many pattern identification methods used in diabetes management today. Further study will inform how improved pattern identification can lead to improved glycemic control.