BACKGROUND: Many glycemic variability (GV) indices exist in the literature. In previous works, we demonstrated that a set of GV indices, extracted from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data, can distinguish between stages of diabetes progression. We showed that 25 indices driving a logistic regression classifier can differentiate between healthy and nonhealthy individuals; whereas 37 GV indices and four individual parameters, feeding a polynomial-kernel support vector machine (SVM), can further distinguish between impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). The latter approach has some limitations to interpretability (complex model, extensive index pool). In this article, we try to obtain the same performance with a simpler classifier and a parsimonious subset of indices. METHODS: We analyzed the data of 62 subjects with IGT or T2D. We selected 17 interpretable GV indices and four parameters (age, sex, BMI, waist circumference). We trained a SVM on the data of a baseline visit and tested it on the follow-up visit, comparing the results with the state-of-art methods. RESULTS: The linear SVM fed by a reduced subset of 17 GV indices and four basic parameters achieved 82.3% accuracy, only marginally worse than the reference 87.1% (41-features polynomial-kernel SVM). Cross-validation accuracies were comparable (69.6% vs 72.5%). CONCLUSION: The proposed SVM fed by 17 GV indices and four parameters can differentiate between IGT and T2D. Using a simpler model and a parsimonious set of indices caused only a slight accuracy deterioration, with significant advantages in terms of interpretability.
BACKGROUND: Many glycemic variability (GV) indices exist in the literature. In previous works, we demonstrated that a set of GV indices, extracted from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data, can distinguish between stages of diabetes progression. We showed that 25 indices driving a logistic regression classifier can differentiate between healthy and nonhealthy individuals; whereas 37 GV indices and four individual parameters, feeding a polynomial-kernel support vector machine (SVM), can further distinguish between impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). The latter approach has some limitations to interpretability (complex model, extensive index pool). In this article, we try to obtain the same performance with a simpler classifier and a parsimonious subset of indices. METHODS: We analyzed the data of 62 subjects with IGT or T2D. We selected 17 interpretable GV indices and four parameters (age, sex, BMI, waist circumference). We trained a SVM on the data of a baseline visit and tested it on the follow-up visit, comparing the results with the state-of-art methods. RESULTS: The linear SVM fed by a reduced subset of 17 GV indices and four basic parameters achieved 82.3% accuracy, only marginally worse than the reference 87.1% (41-features polynomial-kernel SVM). Cross-validation accuracies were comparable (69.6% vs 72.5%). CONCLUSION: The proposed SVM fed by 17 GV indices and four parameters can differentiate between IGT and T2D. Using a simpler model and a parsimonious set of indices caused only a slight accuracy deterioration, with significant advantages in terms of interpretability.
Entities:
Keywords:
classification; continuous glucose monitoring; glycemic variability; impaired glucose tolerance; support vector machine; type 2 diabetes
Authors: Dongyuan Xing; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck; William V Tamborlane; Lori Laffel; Bruce A Buckingham; Darrell M Wilson; Stuart Weinzimer; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Katrina J Ruedy Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Giada Acciaroli; Giovanni Sparacino; Liisa Hakaste; Andrea Facchinetti; Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio; Alessandro Palombit; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Rafael Gabriel; Jaime Aranda; Saturio Vega; Claudio Cobelli Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Thomas A Peyser; Andrew K Balo; Bruce A Buckingham; Irl B Hirsch; Arturo Garcia Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Nicole Y Xu; Kevin T Nguyen; Ashley Y DuBord; John Pickup; Jennifer L Sherr; Hazhir Teymourian; Eda Cengiz; Barry H Ginsberg; Claudio Cobelli; David Ahn; Riccardo Bellazzi; B Wayne Bequette; Laura Gandrud Pickett; Linda Parks; Elias K Spanakis; Umesh Masharani; Halis K Akturk; John S Melish; Sarah Kim; Gu Eon Kang; David C Klonoff Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Yang Liu; Kun Huang; Yahui Wang; Erqiang Hu; Benliang Wei; Zhaona Song; Yuqing Zou; Luanfeng Ge; Lina Chen; Wan Li Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Dina H Griauzde; Alison O'Brien; William S Yancy; Caroline R Richardson; Jamie Krinock; Melissa DeJonckheere; Deanna J M Isaman; Kaitlyn Vanias; Samuel Shopinski; Laura R Saslow Journal: Trials Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.728