Kent W Stewart1, Christopher G Pretty1, Geoffrey M Shaw2, J Geoffrey Chase1. 1. 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Bio-Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. 2 Department of Intensive Care, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigates blood glucose (BG) measurement interpolation techniques to represent intermediate BG dynamics, and the effect resampling of retrospective BG data has on key glycemic control (GC) performance results. GC protocols in the ICU have varying BG measurement intervals ranging from 0.5 to 4 hours. Sparse data pose problems, particularly in comparing GC performance or model fitting, and thus interpolation is required. METHODS: Retrospective data from SPRINT in Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (2005-2007) were used to analyze several interpolation techniques. Piecewise linear, spline, and cubic interpolation functions, which force interpolation through measured data, as well as 1st and 2nd Order B-spline basis functions, are used to identify the interpolated trace. Dense data were thinned to increase sparsity and obtain measurements (Hidden Measurements) for comparison after interpolation. Performance is assessed based on error in capturing hidden measurements. Finally, the effect of minutely versus hourly sampling of the interpolated trace on key GC performance statistics was investigated using retrospective data received from STAR GC in Christchurch Hospital ICU, New Zealand (2011-2015). RESULTS: All of the piecewise functions performed considerably better than the fitted interpolation functions. Linear piecewise interpolation performed the best having a mean RMSE 0.39 mmol/L, within 2 standard deviations of the BG sensor error. Minutely sampled BG resulted in significantly different key GC performance values when compared to raw sparse BG measurements. CONCLUSION: Linear piecewise interpolation provides the best estimate of intermediate BG dynamics and all analyses comparing GC protocol performance should use minutely linearly interpolated BG data.
BACKGROUND: This study investigates blood glucose (BG) measurement interpolation techniques to represent intermediate BG dynamics, and the effect resampling of retrospective BG data has on key glycemic control (GC) performance results. GC protocols in the ICU have varying BG measurement intervals ranging from 0.5 to 4 hours. Sparse data pose problems, particularly in comparing GC performance or model fitting, and thus interpolation is required. METHODS: Retrospective data from SPRINT in Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (2005-2007) were used to analyze several interpolation techniques. Piecewise linear, spline, and cubic interpolation functions, which force interpolation through measured data, as well as 1st and 2nd Order B-spline basis functions, are used to identify the interpolated trace. Dense data were thinned to increase sparsity and obtain measurements (Hidden Measurements) for comparison after interpolation. Performance is assessed based on error in capturing hidden measurements. Finally, the effect of minutely versus hourly sampling of the interpolated trace on key GC performance statistics was investigated using retrospective data received from STAR GC in Christchurch Hospital ICU, New Zealand (2011-2015). RESULTS: All of the piecewise functions performed considerably better than the fitted interpolation functions. Linear piecewise interpolation performed the best having a mean RMSE 0.39 mmol/L, within 2 standard deviations of the BG sensor error. Minutely sampled BG resulted in significantly different key GC performance values when compared to raw sparse BG measurements. CONCLUSION: Linear piecewise interpolation provides the best estimate of intermediate BG dynamics and all analyses comparing GC protocol performance should use minutely linearly interpolated BG data.
Authors: Alicia Evans; Aaron Le Compte; Chia-Siong Tan; Logan Ward; James Steel; Christopher G Pretty; Sophie Penning; Fatanah Suhaimi; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-01-01
Authors: Karin Amrein; Martin Ellmerer; Roman Hovorka; Norman Kachel; Heike Fries; Dirk von Lewinski; Karlheinz Smolle; Thomas R Pieber; Johannes Plank Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Jessica Lin; Normy N Razak; Christopher G Pretty; Aaron Le Compte; Paul Docherty; Jacquelyn D Parente; Geoffrey M Shaw; Christopher E Hann; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Simon Finfer; Dean R Chittock; Steve Yu-Shuo Su; Deborah Blair; Denise Foster; Vinay Dhingra; Rinaldo Bellomo; Deborah Cook; Peter Dodek; William R Henderson; Paul C Hébert; Stephane Heritier; Daren K Heyland; Colin McArthur; Ellen McDonald; Imogen Mitchell; John A Myburgh; Robyn Norton; Julie Potter; Bruce G Robinson; Juan J Ronco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser; Philippe Devos; Sergio Ruiz-Santana; Christian Mélot; Djillali Annane; Johan Groeneveld; Gaetano Iapichino; Xavier Leverve; Gérard Nitenberg; Pierre Singer; Jan Wernerman; Michael Joannidis; Adela Stecher; René Chioléro Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: X W Wong; J G Chase; G M Shaw; C E Hann; T Lotz; J Lin; I Singh-Levett; L J Hollingsworth; O S W Wong; S Andreassen Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 2.242
Authors: Kent W Stewart; Christopher G Pretty; Hamish Tomlinson; Felicity L Thomas; József Homlok; Szabó Némedi Noémi; Attila Illyés; Geoffrey M Shaw; Balázs Benyó; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 6.925