Literature DB >> 28299958

A Model of Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Measurement Error.

Martina Vettoretti1, Andrea Facchinetti1, Giovanni Sparacino1, Claudio Cobelli1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A reliable model of the probability density function (PDF) of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) measurement error would be important for several applications in diabetes, like testing in silico insulin therapies. In the literature, the PDF of SMBG error is usually described by a Gaussian function, whose symmetry and simplicity are unable to properly describe the variability of experimental data. Here, we propose a new methodology to derive more realistic models of SMBG error PDF.
METHODS: The blood glucose range is divided into zones where error (absolute or relative) presents a constant standard deviation (SD). In each zone, a suitable PDF model is fitted by maximum-likelihood to experimental data. Model validation is performed by goodness-of-fit tests. The method is tested on two databases collected by the One Touch Ultra 2 (OTU2; Lifescan Inc, Milpitas, CA) and the Bayer Contour Next USB (BCN; Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Whippany, NJ). In both cases, skew-normal and exponential models are used to describe the distribution of errors and outliers, respectively.
RESULTS: Two zones were identified: zone 1 with constant SD absolute error; zone 2 with constant SD relative error. Goodness-of-fit tests confirmed that identified PDF models are valid and superior to Gaussian models used so far in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methodology allows to derive realistic models of SMBG error PDF. These models can be used in several investigations of present interest in the scientific community, for example, to perform in silico clinical trials to compare SMBG-based with nonadjunctive CGM-based insulin treatments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  measurement error; modeling; parameter estimation; self-monitoring blood glucose; statistical distribution

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28299958      PMCID: PMC5588839          DOI: 10.1177/1932296817698498

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol        ISSN: 1932-2968


  26 in total

1.  A model for measurement error for gene expression arrays.

Authors:  D M Rocke; B Durbin
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.479

2.  Impact of blood glucose self-monitoring errors on glucose variability, risk for hypoglycemia, and average glucose control in type 1 diabetes: an in silico study.

Authors:  Marc D Breton; Boris P Kovatchev
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2010-05-01

3.  System accuracy evaluation of 43 blood glucose monitoring systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose according to DIN EN ISO 15197.

Authors:  Guido Freckmann; Christina Schmid; Annette Baumstark; Stefan Pleus; Manuela Link; Cornelia Haug
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2012-09-01

4.  A signal processing application for evaluating self-monitoring blood glucose strategies in a software agent model.

Authors:  Zhanle Wang; Raman Paranjape
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Model of glucose sensor error components: identification and assessment for new Dexcom G4 generation devices.

Authors:  Andrea Facchinetti; Simone Del Favero; Giovanni Sparacino; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2014-11-23       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  A new-generation continuous glucose monitoring system: improved accuracy and reliability compared with a previous-generation system.

Authors:  Mark Christiansen; Timothy Bailey; Elaine Watkins; David Liljenquist; David Price; Katherine Nakamura; Robert Boock; Thomas Peyser
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 6.118

7.  Analysis, modeling, and simulation of the accuracy of continuous glucose sensors.

Authors:  Marc Breton; Boris Kovatchev
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2008-09

8.  Monte Carlo simulation in establishing analytical quality requirements for clinical laboratory tests meeting clinical needs.

Authors:  James C Boyd; David E Bruns
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.600

9.  The UVA/PADOVA Type 1 Diabetes Simulator: New Features.

Authors:  Chiara Dalla Man; Francesco Micheletto; Dayu Lv; Marc Breton; Boris Kovatchev; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-01-01

10.  Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  William V Tamborlane; Roy W Beck; Bruce W Bode; Bruce Buckingham; H Peter Chase; Robert Clemons; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Larry A Fox; Lisa K Gilliam; Irl B Hirsch; Elbert S Huang; Craig Kollman; Aaron J Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Jean M Lawrence; Joyce Lee; Nelly Mauras; Michael O'Grady; Katrina J Ruedy; Michael Tansey; Eva Tsalikian; Stuart Weinzimer; Darrell M Wilson; Howard Wolpert; Tim Wysocki; Dongyuan Xing
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  6 in total

1.  The UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes Simulator Goes From Single Meal to Single Day.

Authors:  Roberto Visentin; Enrique Campos-Náñez; Michele Schiavon; Dayu Lv; Martina Vettoretti; Marc Breton; Boris P Kovatchev; Chiara Dalla Man; Claudio Cobelli
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-02-16

2.  A Neural-Network-Based Approach to Personalize Insulin Bolus Calculation Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Giacomo Cappon; Martina Vettoretti; Francesca Marturano; Andrea Facchinetti; Giovanni Sparacino
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-03

Review 3.  Modeling of Diabetes and Its Clinical Impact.

Authors:  Katharina Fritzen; Lutz Heinemann; Oliver Schnell
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2018-07-13

4.  Limits to the Evaluation of the Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems by Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Patrick Schrangl; Florian Reiterer; Lutz Heinemann; Guido Freckmann; Luigi Del Re
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-18

5.  Personalized blood glucose prediction: A hybrid approach using grammatical evolution and physiological models.

Authors:  Iván Contreras; Silvia Oviedo; Martina Vettoretti; Roberto Visentin; Josep Vehí
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Differences Between Flash Glucose Monitor and Fingerprick Measurements.

Authors:  Odd Martin Staal; Heidi Marie Umbach Hansen; Sverre Christian Christiansen; Anders Lyngvi Fougner; Sven Magnus Carlsen; Øyvind Stavdahl
Journal:  Biosensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-10-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.