BACKGROUND: In automated glucose clamp experiments, blood glucose (BG) concentrations are kept close to a predefined target level using variable glucose infusion rates (GIRs) determined by implemented algorithms. Clamp quality (ie, the ability to keep BG close to target) highly depends on the quality of these algorithms. We developed a new Clamp algorithm based on the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) approach and compared clamp quality between this and the established Biostator (BS) algorithm. METHODS: In numerical simulations, the PID-based algorithm was optimized in silico. The optimized Clamp-PID algorithm was tested in in vitro experiments and finally validated in vivo in a small (n = 5) clinical study. RESULTS: In silico, in vitro, and in vivo experiments showed better clamp quality for the new Clamp-PID algorithm compared with the BS algorithm: precision and absolute control deviation (ACD) decreased from 3.7% to 1.1% and from 2.9 mg/dL to 0.6 mg/dL, respectively, in the numerical simulation. The in vitro validation demonstrated reductions in precision (from 3.3% ± 0.1% (mean ± SD) to 1.4% ± 0.4%) and in ACD (from 2.3 mg/dL ± 0.4 mg/dL to 0.8 mg/dL ± 0.2 mg/dL), respectively. In the clinical study, precision and ACD improved from 6.5% ± 1.3% to 4.0% ± 1.1% and from 3.6 mg/dL ± 0.9 mg/dL to 2.2 mg/dl ± 0.6 mg/dl, respectively. The quality parameter utility did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The new Clamp-PID algorithm improves the clamp quality parameters precision and ACD versus the BS algorithm.
BACKGROUND: In automated glucose clamp experiments, blood glucose (BG) concentrations are kept close to a predefined target level using variable glucose infusion rates (GIRs) determined by implemented algorithms. Clamp quality (ie, the ability to keep BG close to target) highly depends on the quality of these algorithms. We developed a new Clamp algorithm based on the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) approach and compared clamp quality between this and the established Biostator (BS) algorithm. METHODS: In numerical simulations, the PID-based algorithm was optimized in silico. The optimized Clamp-PID algorithm was tested in in vitro experiments and finally validated in vivo in a small (n = 5) clinical study. RESULTS: In silico, in vitro, and in vivo experiments showed better clamp quality for the new Clamp-PID algorithm compared with the BS algorithm: precision and absolute control deviation (ACD) decreased from 3.7% to 1.1% and from 2.9 mg/dL to 0.6 mg/dL, respectively, in the numerical simulation. The in vitro validation demonstrated reductions in precision (from 3.3% ± 0.1% (mean ± SD) to 1.4% ± 0.4%) and in ACD (from 2.3 mg/dL ± 0.4 mg/dL to 0.8 mg/dL ± 0.2 mg/dL), respectively. In the clinical study, precision and ACD improved from 6.5% ± 1.3% to 4.0% ± 1.1% and from 3.6 mg/dL ± 0.9 mg/dL to 2.2 mg/dl ± 0.6 mg/dl, respectively. The quality parameter utility did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The new Clamp-PID algorithm improves the clamp quality parameters precision and ACD versus the BS algorithm.
Authors: Jordan E Pinsker; Joon Bok Lee; Eyal Dassau; Dale E Seborg; Paige K Bradley; Ravi Gondhalekar; Wendy C Bevier; Lauren Huyett; Howard C Zisser; Francis J Doyle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-06-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer Leohr; Mary Anne Dellva; Elizabeth LaBell; David E Coutant; Oliver Klein; Leona Plum-Moerschel; Eric Zijlstra; Helle Linnebjerg Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 3.393